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

It's not just a viewpoint though. It has now been properly examined by the Supreme Court, so thinking she's guilty of the murder is just incorrect.

Related to this, I wondered if anyone has any thoughts on the presentation of Kercher in the ITV2 drama? It's clearly established that she was a young woman who enjoyed recreational sex and recreational drug use.

I'm not questioning the truth of that, and nor is it something that I personally would judge her for even remotely.

However, it's possible that this portrayal is upsetting to some - friends and/or members of her family, perhaps.

And Kercher has no means of confirming or denying the portrayal, of giving her account, etc

While I can understand why Knox chose to include these scenes, and the points she is making, there also seems to be an element of hypocrisy here - of making very something public that most of us expect, and many prefer, to keep largely private.

Again, not trying to upset or offend anyone, and very much trying to approach this discussion with an open mind.

Just for my information as well (not disputing it), in what ways have they been vile? I just did a quick internet search and couldn't find anything that would count as vile - I know they have expressed a desire for privacy......

A woman is found murdered (stabbed to death), in an apartment that has been broken into. She has also been sexually assaulted.

Suspect A (male):

• has no significant prior relationship to anyone in the apartment;
• has a recent and extensive history of break-ins;
• has recent history of threatening people with knives;
• had intercourse with the deceased on the night of the murder (no prior relationship);
• is the only other person of significance, other than the victim, whose DNA is present at the scene (victim's bedroom).
• Fled the country following the murder.

Suspect B (female):

• is a housemate of the victim
• was with her boyfriend when he the police in relation to a break-in.
• No criminal history
• owns a vibrator, and is in a sexual relationship with her boyfriend (out of wedlock!)
• is perceived to be acting very inappropriately (
• no trace of their DNA at the scene.
• voluntarily cooperated with police.

Suspect C (male)

• Boyfriend of suspect B, of around 1 week.
• no trace of their DNA at the scene.
• called police.
• cooperated with police.

No reasonable person would jump to "Satanic sex game gone wrong" or the later theory of "argument over rent escalating into a rape by suspect A, while B and C also participated and they all carried out a murder.

Unfortunately, the lead prosecutor was not a reasonable man. He was a man, with deeply conservative religious views and a deep fixation with the occult, believing in the existence of a Satanic murder network.

He had been subject to widespread ridicule after reopening an investigation ruled, and widely considered, to be a death by accidental drawing or suicide - he determined it to be a massive conspiracy involving over 20 public officials, who he charged with a mass cover up (which he alleged involved two separate body-swaps of the body in the grave).

The case was thrown out for a complete lack of evidence.

In addition to the widespread ridicule, he was under criminal investigation at the time of Meredith's murder (for abuse of office and illegal wiretapping) - later charged and convicted but overturned on appeal.

Against the backdrop of his reputation being in tatters over ludicrous claims of satanic conspiracy, and with the murder of Meredith occurring on All Saints Day, he advanced the theory of Satanic conspiracy involving Meredith, which he believed to be linked to the previous case - sweet vindication!

At the epicenter of the world's press, and having coerced false statements from Knox (notwithstanding immediate retraction), he held a triumphant press conference, declaring to the world that he had cracked the case, and Lumumba, Knox and Sollecito all participated in a premeditated, Satanic murder.

Of course, Lumumba had a definitive alibi, and then cast-iron evidence emerged, showing Guede to be the attacker.

Unable to admit his mistake - that he had again been an absolutely moronic, fantastic, incompetent clown - he constructed a new theory to try and prove he was not completely wrong. In doing so, he refused to accept what the actual evidence showed, concocted ludicrous theories based on no or shoddy evidence, and the authorities used highly dubious tactics (like the HIV lie) to weaponize the press against Knox, and taint the jury.

The case against Knox was never just "weak", "speculative", "flimsy" or similar. It was insane.

I hope and trust that anyone who still believes it simply did not keep up to speed with later developments.

I dont generally read the tabloids, but I imagine they reported far more in depth on the "demonic succubus murderer" initial story than the "it is confirmed that we reported masses of objectively stupid bullshit" development that followed.

To be fair, if there is one thing that this series of tragic events should teach us, it's that courts can reach incorrect verdicts! Any court, even the Supreme Court, relies on humans, and humans can err.....

I personally don't question for one second that Knox is innocent of the murder of Meredith Kercher - the evidence seems pretty overwhelming to me. I am simply saying that the fact that the Supreme Court judges her innocent does not, in and of itself, logically prove this.

Are you sure about the presentation of Kercher in the ITV2 drama? I haven't seen it but the information I've found says it is Knox who is presented like that, not Kercher.

Both are. There is for example a scene when both young women are with different guys, and Knox thinks Kercher is reminding her to use a condom when she shags her guy, but it turns out she (Kercher) is asking Knox for a condom.

Another scene where they both go downstairs to "borrow" a joint from the guys who have the flat dunderneath them. One of these boys comments on the fact that he's had sex with Meredith Kercher already.

There are a few other examples. The point being made (I think) was that both Knox and Kercher enjoyed sex, cannabis etc, so that it was very unfair for Knox to be demonised for this in the way she was, while Kercher was presented by the prosecution as an innocent.

I can understand why Knox might want to make that point. However, it's also uncomfortable. Knox is in control of narrative now and has chosen to allow herself to be presented like this (and I understand why) as Kercher obviously can't consent to her portrayal.

Not that anyone should judge either young woman for their sexual choices in my opinion - and I don't personally feel strongly about recreational drug use either. But no doubt some viewers would.....

I haven't seen the show to can't comment on the exact portrayal, but those descriptions of Meredith's activities are supported by witness testimony from the investigation and trial (including from her romantic interest).

People forget that she was initially presented, by the prosecution and tabloid media (in the UK and Italy), as a "party girl" who died in a drug-fueled sex game gone wrong, in part based on statements given to police.

It was only later, after "sex game theory" fell apart that they pivoted to casting Amanda as the monstrous, hyper-sexual deviant - jealous of saintly and passive Meredith, because they suddenly needed a new motive.

Both partook in cannabis, both had recently started consensual sexual relationships with their new partners. They were both fairly normal young people. No judgment from me, either (not least because it would make me a gigantic hypocrite).

Probably also worth repeating - it wasnt an ITV drama, though ITV picked it up in the UK. It was US-produced.

American viewers, and those from other international English speaking countries, were not primed to believe the Deviant vs Innocent narrative. The UK press spin was widely criticized internationally.

Again, I haven't seen the show, but the sort of characterization you describe seems as though it'd be considered "matter of fact" and inoffensive outside of the UK.

At that time they were innocent, as in innocent until proven guilty, they were awaiting trial, there was evidence against them, there was an ongoing police investigation.

AK in particular was a flight risk.

There was never anything that could reasonably be considered "evidence" against Knox - just fantasies and false claims.

she wrote about her experience. I get that. Standing up in a comedy venue making jokes is an absolute no, no. Totally crosses the line and disrespectful to Meredith's family. If she wants to do stand up go back to her home country to do it not here.

Does it matter what the jokes were about, or not?

What about the content of her act was disrespectful?

Why does she owe the Kerchers respect?

Does it matter that other people, particularly women, seem to have found a lot of value in her show?

Are you just leaping to judgments based on what you've read in the media?

I was reading the tabloids at the time and they and the Kerchers vastly preferred first two idiotic theories (which were then sounding as idiotic as they do now) and continued to hint or imply that in reality Knox was still responsible. So I’m not surprised that some people still believe she is somehow guilty because the British press and the Kerchers never fully said - we were wrong and we are sorry. British press also doesn’t like to admit they were idiots

Reviews are in and apparently she’s not even funny.

Far too many Americans without a sense of humour at the fringe.

Genuinely, the more I read this thread, the more it feels like a decent chunk of the British population has been radicalized against one woman by the tabloid media.

I'm not sure people realize that the reaction of the rest of the world reacted with horror at the British press, rather than at Knox.

I'm more generous to the Kerchers than you. I imagine some of the truthers in here are decent people, who've been conditioned into believing the absurd in this particular instance. In an objective sense, the Kerchers have behaved very badly, but they're also victims of the Italian police and the media. I find it hard to relate to them, but I cannot imagine they're doing it out of malice.

Yes, apparently not well categorized as a comedy - more an inoffensice but powerful, feminist, performance peice.

I am not sure how categories work at the Edinburgh Fringe. Was there a better one? Not all comedy is stand up, btw. And that category covers a huge spread. Also not sure who picks.

Well she has and is doing it here, as she's entitled to do.

There are a few different categories but you can only pick one - you can't be cross-genre.

Based on reports of its contents, it could have been characterized as "spoken word" or "comedy". It sounds as though the contents probably skewed towards "spoken word" more than "comedy", and also did the former much more successfully than the latter.

"Sincere, moving and powerful...not very funny" seems to be the broad consensus. I've chuckled at a couple of jokes, and I actually get the sense she's quite funny, but I don't know how much you can do with "I'm the woman that was falsely accused of murder", and there's a gulf between "funny person" and "good stand up comic".

Yes you are right. I don’t think they are malicious of course, they suffered a terrible tragedy. The “truthers” here don’t have an excuse though.

But the press are the worst. British tabloid and non tabloid press is honestly so gross and it’s so weird that it genuinely has a country in a chokehold and can just shape the narrative to such an extent (also Brexit, Megan Markle, etc etc). And British people have no idea what reputation British tabloids have outside the UK

So just to clarify, posters on this thread feel the Kercher's have behaved "very badly" or "vilely" for not issuing an apology to Knox for at one time believing she was guilty.

(As far m I understand it, they have not said after her aquital that they still feel she is guilty - merely that they are on "a journey to the truth" - and they have objected to some of her media projects for drawing attention to the case in ways they are uncomfortable with.

But you don't feel they have the right to do this as it upsets Knox? Yet you feel Knox "owes them nothing" in terms of compassion, respect etc?.Either towards them, or towards their late daughter?

I don't know, perhaps I am missing something, but it all
seems very one sided.

If my daughter was dead, and had been portrayed in the way Kercher is here, I would be very upset. Not because I think drugs and sex are shameful. But because I don't think the public have the right to pry into someone's private life for entertainment - especially someone who is completely powerless to reply - and yet rhat's what is done to Meredith Kercher here.

Maybe Knox has the right to tell this story, and maybe she feels Kercher's sex life was too germaine to the story to be left out. But it's not a tricky feat of empathy to imagine why Kercher's family wouldn't like it, and other similar projects.

I don't understand how Knox repeating matters of public record, in one of the most high profile cases of the century, amounts to prying into Meredith's private life.

I don't understand why Amanda Knox's telling of the story (which, of course, includes Meredith's part in it) is so objectionable when it had already been the subject of hundreds of thousands of articles and other media - many of which are "factually spurious".

Again - not seen the show: nothing you describe sounds like an attack on Kercher's character, but you are troubled that she is powerless to reply. On the other hand, Knox was subject to one of the most widespread and deliberate character assassinations of modern history, but you seem to want to place significant limitations on her power to reply (limitations that have not been placed on any of those who attacked her).

Just to confrim in case a misunderstanding, The Twisted Tale of Amanda Knox was released years after Meredith's parents deaths. The most vocal remaining family member is her sister, Stephanie, who was recently launched a high profile campaign in the media and, in the course of that, appeared to imply Knox's guilt (and made assertions about the contents of Knox's show which were unture, whipping up a media frenzy against a victim of a media frenzy).

I also dont agree with her apparent thesis (in the Scotman) that its okay to call someone a murderer but not to tell jokes.

Nonetheless, I don't doubt her sincerity or authenticness, and am lucky enough that I cannot even conceive of what its like to walk in her shoes. A lot of people* don't afford Knox anything approaching similar.

(* i don't mean you: Obviously we disagree, but you've been notably receptive to considering alternative views, and you are evidently weighing arguments from a range of perspectives. My post isn't meant to sound as confrontational as I think it may, I'm trying to be clear not dissmisive).

I do think it's entirely possible to accept that Knox was innocent of the murder, and condemn the way she was treated by the British press and the Italian justice system, while simultaenously condemning some of her actions now.

If the surviving Kerchers are still publicallty stating she is guilty of the murder, I have not seen that. Again, apologies if I am wrong.

Thank you - definitely not trying to be confrontational or upset anyone, just to get to the heart of why there is such a strong difference of opinion on this matter between women who (I am quite certain) are all advocates for women - it seems to me that everyone commenting on this thread is driven by a strong desire to see justice for everyone, women in particular.

So, the show presents, especially in the early episodes, a number of scenes like the ones I described - both Knox and Kercher are seen drinking, smoking pot, flirting, enjoying male company, enjoying active sex lives - all things that we would not condemn but that are traditionally used to vilify women, especially those women who are the victims of sexual violence (the whole "she asked for it" myth).

While it may well be true that this is simply a representation of things they did, it's a selective one, in that the show does not include numerous scenes of Kercher studying, or tidying her room, or eating dinner or other things she presumably spent time doing. It's not ONLY drugs, sex and partying - we are shown Kercher reading on the balcony and Knox's narrative voice comments that she likes to read - but the sex etc occupies a significant part of the presentation of Kercher.

I can understand why Knox majors on this aspect of her friend's experience. The message seems to be, both of these young women lived similar lives and enjoyed similar things, but only one was unfairly vilified for it.

But nontheless, in presenting Kercher in this way, she is surely doing to her what is often very unfairly done to other victims of sexual violence - exposing her private life to the public gaze.

Does the fact that this was done to Knox, justify her doing it to someone else?

Though I am not ashamed of my sex life, I would not like it to be presented as part of a drama designed for public entertainment. Either before or after I am dead. But if it happened while I was still alive, I suppose I could at least try to correct anything I felt was genuinely unfair in my portrayal.

If this happened to a deceased loved one, again, I would be unhappy. Especially if that loved one was a woman who had been a victim of sexual violence. Because it's yet another violation.

In short, Kercher's rape and murder should not, in my view, make her private life a subject for public entertainment.