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

[VivienneDelacroix]

Aibu to think that this show at the Edinburgh Festival should be cancelled? It mocks the circumstances around the murder of Meredith Kercher and serves it up as entertainment.

Not only is it horribly disrespectful of Meredith's family, but it also belittles the issue of violence against girls and women.

Meredith's siblings are calling for it to be pulled from the festival. There is also a petition calling for it to be stopped.

c.org/WXGTGJfpRh

Your opinion and obviously you're entitled to it. But the people that signed do have the right to object. That's not silencing. Amanda Knox has told her story many times and she has been free to do so.

That doesn't relate to either what I wrote just then or the post you quoted. Neither of those posts disputed anyone's right to object.

Because the people who are exercising their right to complain about the play are also subject to comment and opinion, just like anyone else. Criticising them/you isn't silencing either.

There's a report about it here from the show last night. I still don't know what to think. It sounds like she made some cheap jokes about being in prison.

https://www.scotsman.com/arts-and-culture/i-went-to-amanda-knoxs-first-fringe-show-and-here-is-everything-that-happened-8845537

The attitudes, decency and behaviour of those MNers who do want the play to happen are very much up for critique too. After all we are dealing someone who was handed a prison sentence in 2025.

Obviously it works both ways in a discussion about a discussion as you put above.

It's great when people respect others have opposing views and accept this. Both sides of the discussion are up for critique if people wish.

Oh dear. (My opinion).

Agree. Attention seeking professional victim who makes it all about HER.

Absolutely. That's very clear. What still isn't clear is whether you thought that wasn't happening in either the post you replied to initially or mine, and if so why. Obviously you don't think criticism is the same thing as silencing, after all.

I think I pretty was clear in what I said.

You were indeed. What you've left out is how you think it related to the posts you were quoting.

She is a victim of a miscarriage of justice .. and the show (very clearly) all about her.

…still can’t work out what she’s done wrong

Amanda Knox has an account of what happened and the treatment received that is something that should be told. The miscarriage of justice, the way that a woman who seemingly enjoys sex was portrayed, and much more.

I just don't think it should be a comedy show.

Her outstanding conviction is for slander, based on her statement incriminating Patrick Lumumba (which, of course, also incriminated herself). Given the previous decisions of the courts about the way this statement was extracted from her, it is astonishing that the courts have upheld this conviction. Upholding it flies in the face of the evidence. It does, of course, mean that she is not entitled to any compensation from Italy for 4 years of wrongful imprisonment. If the courts had vacated the conviction, she would have been entitled to around £300,000 compensation. Instead, the only compensation she has received is around £16,000 for violations of her rights by the police when she was being interrogated.

Italian law is unusual. If this had happened in the UK (or in most other jurisdictions), she would not have committed a criminal offence even if she had implicated Lumumba to the police voluntarily. Indeed, in the UK statements to the police are protected by qualified privilege, so even a civil case against her would have failed. And of course, in the UK the police would not have been able to coerce her into implicating Lumumba in the way that happened in Italy. She would not have been subjected to over 12 hours of questioning a day over 4 days. She would not have been deprived of sleep and questioned in the early hours of the morning, nor would she have been beaten by the police. She would not have been denied a lawyer. If she did not speak English, she would have been provided with a competent interpreter who understood their role. And the police would not have been able to continue this treatment of her indefinitely until she finally gave them what they wanted - a statement implicating both herself and Lumumba in line with their theory at the time.

Note that, if you were to walk into a police station in Italy and repeat to them your belief that Knox is guilty of involvement in Kercher's murder despite the clear evidence that she is not, you would have committed the same offence as her and, if prosecuted, would be facing a 4 year sentence.

I’d say it’s the Kerchers who are addicted to media attention

Who should she make it about? Wrongful imprisonment and wrongful conviction happened to HER

You keep droning on about her being a convicted criminal. Do you even understand what she was convicted of and how weird that offence of calunnia is in that it is very different from perjury? And that it has nothing to do with actual murder?

Id be amazed if it still stands after current ECHR proceedings

So glad the show has been well received by audiences - a standing ovation 🤗

Just goes to show you - internet trolls are best ignored.

An appalling thing to say. This kind of nastiness does Knox no favours either, if her fans are completely lacking in decency.

Isn't that the truth.

I find it baffling that people holding different opinions... even when based on proven facts are sometimes labelled internet trolls. People should be able to disagree without resorting to personal insults or name calling.

And you dont think that's a bit rich coming from someone who has accused an exonerated woman, a victim of the most well known miscarriages of justices in history - who the court ultimately found could not possibly have had any material involvement in the murder- a murderer?

You'll have to excuse me for giving absolutely zero weight to your moral compass.

But signing petitions aiming to prevent someone from airing their view and others from being able to listen is, of course, totally fine.

Oh, and calling people "completely lacking in decency" of course, that's fine too.

And as this discussion is partly about freedom of speech, I’ll “drone on,” in your words as much as I like.. particularly while others continue repeating themselves too.

Calling the offence "weird” doesn’t erase the conviction, and predicting what may happen in future proceedings doesn’t alter its current legal status.

Has the show gone ahead... yes.

Did people exercise the right to sign a petition... Yes.

Isn't it great that both sides get to put across their opinions

You have to accept that others have different views without collectively labelling people as described in your own words 'internet trolls'... which can be interpreted as name calling.

The show went ahead despite people trying to prevent it.

You don't get to preach the merits of freedom of speech when it prevailed despite you attempting to prevent it.