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

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

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

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.

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......

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

@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?

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

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

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.

There may have been enough to investigate her but there was absolutely nothing to justify a conviction and 4 years in prison.

I hope you never find yourself falsely accused of a crime and subject to the same poor standards of policing and justice AK did.

The "enough to investigate her" - if you can call it that - was that some people, prosecutor included, thought she seemed weird.

Really, she was arrested because the prosecutor was a disgraced, ultra conservative religious fanatic, who had been ridiculed over a ludicrous and baseless claims of Satanism in another case.

Desperate to salvage his reputation, and having noted the murder took place on All Saint's Day, he instantly leaped to a theory of Satanic panic.

Then, his misogyny told him that the woman having premarital sex probably had a vagina embued with satanic powers.

After using illegal and extreme methods to extract a confession and the implication of Labamba from Knox, he thought he had his vindication, in front of the world's media - only for Rudy Gued to be definitively implicated.

Unable to accept that he was a deluded clown, he ignored real evidence in favor of the false, and used the media to spread fabtastical claims about Knox, which were consumed by the jury.

wUltimately, through Supreme-Court ordered independent tests and reviews, it was determined not a single peice of reliable physical evidence linking Knox or Sollecito to the crime and, beyond that, the physical evidence demonstrated it was not possible she could have materially participated in the crime.

Three of those four years counted towards the separate three year sentence that remains upheld.

Sentences of under 3 years for first time, non-violent offenders don't usually result in any prison time (probation or community service is the norm).

Equally, you've had a lot to say about other people's speculation on the ECHR case, whilst also having speculated that she's actually guilty of murder. Haven't seen you post anything about speculation to the other posters speculating that she was involved in the killing either. Double standards indeed.

I get that in a violent crime, everyone close to the victim would be subject to scrutiny. AK was not immune to that. But yes, because she did not behave like the Italian police and media expected her to behave, they cast her as the villain.

Everyone on this thread implying that she deserved what she got needs their heads examined.

I haven’t said nobody is allowed to speculate. When I expressed something that was speculative, I was repeatedly piled on a few days ago and personally attacked, with several posts subsequently removed for that reason. It's not ok to personally attack someone through ridicule and name calling.

My point is that some of the same posters who treated my speculation as unacceptable have since produced paragraphs of their own. That's the inconsistency I’m calling out.

Didn't say you had.

And worth setting aside points about slander and defamation, which are legal tests, from comments about double standards. It's possible to think the law in a particular jurisdiction is flawed, maybe even a double standard, whilst also acknowledging that it exists and that certain statements might fall foul of it. A person citing what a law says doesn't in itself tell us what they think of it.

Respectfully.. you’ve oversimplified and strengthened what I actually said. I’d appreciate a response to my actual words rather than an interpretation of them. Expressing doubt that she was completely innocent of everything is not the same as explicitly accusing her of murder. I do not believe she murdered Meredith. My doubts concern other aspects of her account and conduct, including the false accusation conviction upheld in 2025. Inevitably, that will cause some people to question her version of events.

This has already been dealt with well by @11AndCounting, so hopefully you've learned that you were wrong about the knife. To which I'd just add that I didn't say there was no basis for any initial arrest, so that's a strawman.

Additionally, we all know what Knox said about Patrick Lumumba, and there's been lengthy discussion about that already in the thread. It's perfectly possible to be angry with her about that and/or to feel the conviction should stand and her ECHR case fail, whilst also not suggesting it means she was involved in the murder.

I’ve signed it.