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

This is the particular, recent quote I have in mind:

"I'm very aware that in high profile cases everyone has their own opinions on guilt and innocence and I also agree with freedom of speech. However, when someone is still using Meredith's name to support themselves, and furthermore, when a comedy is linked to an individual case and individual person, I cannot fathom how rape and murder can be laughed about and I cannot understand how one person's behaviour at the police station can be the subject of the comedy show.”

It certainly isn't direct, and you might read it otherwise, but I find that opening sentence to be extremely loaded (versus even "I'm very aware that Amanda Knox was acquitted" - which even then would not exactly be voicing belief in her innocence).

A lesser issue, but she also seems to embrace as fact that Knox performed a cartwheel at the police station (to stress - consistently denied by Knox and Sollecito, and not a single police officer has ever claimed to have witnessed it themselves).

I do appreciate your expansion.

I ultimately think Knox has the right to tell her story (particularly given the extent of alternative versions presented to this day) and, without seeing that particular version, think it's generally beneficial to women that she does. While it may be regrettable, it is also impossible to disentangle from Kercher.

I do not think enough light can ever be shone on the misogyny she experienced on an international scale.

Cartwheel, from the criticial response, sounds beneficial on that front. It is, however, also very possible that some tellings can land poorly, or land poorly with some.

Forgetting the "public record" or "the media did it first and more" arguments, I do think its worth considering which is preferable:

1. Knox presents the Meredith as she experienced her in the brief time they knew each other - they hung out with men, were sexually active, and recreational drug users. This, to me, makes them normal people - not deviants, not saints. Young women, perhaps skewing slightly (but not remarkably) liberal.

1. Knox leans into "positive" representations of Kercher (e.g., studying in her room), or at least uses them to counterbalance her memories of their social lives together. Could be wrong, but I doubt Knox has many personal experiences of Meredith studying in her room.

While I do appreciate some loved ones might prefer a more sanitized version, and its easier for me to hold my view without any personal connection- I'd rather she was presented honestly, from Knox's (limited) perspective.

I know that you and I are not judging Meredith negatively for her behavior, but I also think its generally important that we do not pander to those who may. I accept that might well be hurtful for the family, but I do consider the succubus and angel charactures the media turned both women into to be immensely harmful - especially since it appears manufactured on both counts.

I think you are saying, that it's important that Knox be allowed to make the point that both young women were actually similar in their recreational activities - as this highlights even more strongly the injustice of the media/Italian justice system's peddling of the angel/Luceferina dichotomy..... I do see the argument, and you make it very well.

On the other hand - in a sense - does the truth of this particular aspect really matter? Even if Kercher had been the cloistered virgin she was alleged to be, while Knox had been (consensually) shagging a different guy every hour, on the hour.... The two young women's sexual and recreational preferences have no bearing on Knox's guilt - she could be as promiscuous as she likes, enjoyment of consensual sex has no bearing on enjoyment of sexual violence, and thus Knox's had no relevance to this case.

And we shouldn't have all become privy to it. Surely one of the many injustices done to Knox was the public blazoning of her sex life.....

So why is it OK now, to do the same with Kercher's? Especially without consent. Obviously consent can't be sought post-mortem but certainly were I to die, my preference would be for my surviving family who were closest to me to have an input into any representation of me, as they would know me best and beat represent my wishes.

I think again, a big part of my discomfort is over the genres Knox is choosing to tell her story. I can see why she and other want it told, and then benefits both to herself and others of retelling it. But a TV drama in that style, so very obviously designed to be visually pleasing and "whimsical" - even titillating at moments (lots of naked rolling around in bed by the attractive young actors who play Sollicito and Knox..... )

And yes there is a narrative voice (Knox's) who acts as a kind of chorus to guide the audience reaction, but not in the ways I personally would like to see. She doesn't stress, for example, yea, Kercher enjoyed sex like most young women do but please don't go confusing that in ANY SENSE with what happened to her, because sex and rape are entirely different things and here's why....."

Instead, the interjections are usually used to remind us of what a unique and quirky personality Knox has, and how incapable most normal people are of understanding her......

And fine, it's her story - the title reminds us of that, so it does what it says on the tin.

But when an absolutely key element of your story is the rape and murder of your friend, doesn't your friend's representation become a matter for great delicacy and care - a huge responsibility, really?

I think this is at the heart of this debate, perhaps, for me. I do feel, whatever horrors Knox went through, Kercher went through worse ones, and that it does behove Knox to be respectful in the ways she chooses to retell that story, especially the elements of it that directly necessitate protrayal of Kercher.

I think the Twisted Tale fails, and I think Cartwheel failed at the first hurdle by being billed as a comedy show - if the content isn't comedic then I'm really pleased to hear that and I guess a good solution might be for Knox to release a statement saying that, that she simply chose that category because she had no choice? But she regrets that it caused offence....

If she does regret that.

My understanding is that going out together, partying, represents a significant portion of their interactions in the brief time they knew each other.

Knox seems to have tried to handle discussing her relationship with Kercher in two different ways:

• In Twisted Tale - in some detail, and more matter of factly;

• In Cartwheel, by minimizing her relationship with Kercher (and her murder.

Both of those approaches have drawn criticism, and I think the unavoidable truth is she cannot tell her story without upsetting some people, due to the way it necessarily interacts with Kercher's, and because both prosection theories of the case and the Italian and UK press focus was based on the sex lives and social habits (briefly - both negatively, latterly, pure Kercher and Foxy Knoxy, to manufacture a motive - both versions profoundly harmful to women).

Separately, unless you go down the "minimize Kercher/murder" route - which only works in something like Cartwheel that focuses on life after, particularly motherhood after, trauma - then the question becomes: should Knox "sanitize" Kercher?

I feel like the question itself is partiallty grounded in misogynistic societal views of women's sexuality, and I don't think there would be an equivalent question raised in respect of a portrayal of a male victim.

Misogynistic views of women, and the "perfect victim" concept, are also so central to the story that, were Knox to censor certain aspects of her experiences with Kercher, she'd be upholding and participating in a patriarchal prejudices that oppressed her (and turned Kercher into a trope).

I do continue to struggle with the notion that Knox is blazoning Kercher's sex life, given the extent of ink spilled about it in the past - including in far more specific detail than I can imagine a show screened on ITV could ever go into (and would be hard to justify inclusion given its outside of Knox's direct experience).

I do think it's worth raising that Knox has talked extensively about the emotional and creative difficulties of portraying Meredith Kercher in Twisted Tale, and the burden of trying to honor her. Knox describes trying to humanize her and portray her as a vibrant young woman and not a tragic headline or autopsy report.

She also made very clear that Cartwheel (in her view) honored Kercher - and the overwhelming critic consensus is that it is, at very least, respectful (perhaps even to the show's overall detriment).

I think you're conflating Knox's decisions, on what is or not respectful of Kercher, and your disagreement with them, with a lack of care on her part. I view it as a subjective question, as is the question of how well or not it is executed, and philosophically, I personally am far more drawn to Knox's perspective than certain of the views you have expressed.

I know you place a great deal of weight on the feelings of the Kercher family, to the extent that they may even override all other factors. I'm sure most of us are sympathetic to their pain but I don't think it amounts to anything like a moral veto, given the intersection of the stories and the systematic misogyny laid bare (which I feel leaving unchallenged, or ceasing to challenge, is both harmful to women and disrespectful to Kercher - not least given the persistent misinformation).

On categorizing it as a "comedy", I feel as though this is an extension of your assumption of the worst of Knox's motives. The show plainly and obviously involves comedy, but straddles two genres.

You seem quite persuaded that - whether if the content is respectful or even positive - the decision to select the "comedy" category was an insensitive attempt to court controversy and provoke (frankly, I'm skeptical that the reaction would have been different if she'd submitted it as "spoken word", particularly if the jokes remained present).

Personally, I think it far more likely (based on Knox's statements, the clips of her act I've seen and the reactions to it) that she viewed it as more a comedy, but UK critics found that the least successful aspect, and I just dont see any reason to assume bad faith.

I also feel as though, if we want to talk about whether a label applied to a show was inaccurate to an extent that it could imply bad faith (and I'm not saying that it definitively was, vs an emotional gut reaction), Stephanie Kerchers assertion - that it "normalizes and trivializes violence against women" would be worthy of far greater scrutiny.

@ilovelurchers, obvs

Apologies if I have misunderstood elements of your reasoning - I think you are saying that Knox has no choice but to present a version of Kercher'si sex life in a Twisted Tale, and given this, it would have been wrong to "sanitize" her presentation...?

But is it really a given that Kercher's sex life had to be addressed?.I'd argue it didn't, as it's simply not relevant. In fact, I would go further and say that it is actually really damaging to have shared these details, not simply to Kercher's "memory', but to female survivors of sexual abuse in general, because:

A) It's a dangerous, pernicious myth of the patriarchy that a woman's sex life has any relevance to her experience as a victim of sexual violence - and

B) moreover, the likelihood of public exposure of personal details is a factor that repeatedly stops women who have experienced sexual violence from reporting it - I know this first hand from my work with survivors but also if anyone wants to dispute it I am sure I can dig out some studies which back me up. .

Yes, the narrative structure of the series, the "plot" if you like, worked better if we were shown Kercher and Knox hanging out pre-murder - but Knox wasn't obliged to use this sort of quasi-fictional TV drama-style genre to tell her story - that was her choice.

I do understand that she wanted to make the point that she and Kercher were similar, so it was unfair that only she was demonised..... I'm just not sure this trumps other considerations.
.

I do feel profound sympathy for the Kerchers of course - the pain of what they went through is unthinkable and I'd prefer to have been in Knox's position, unpleasant as it was, than theirs, a thousand times over.

But I think a lot of the weight I put on their views stems from the fact that they are the closest we have to a voice that can represent the victim who indisputably suffered the most of all - Meredith Kercher.

Out of interest, if Kercher had somehow survived - if everything had played out as it did, except that she went into a coma for a period of time, say, and was now alive to give her views - do you believe she should then been allowed any input to how she was represented in Knox's works, including whether and how her sex life was presented to the public, pre rape and violent assault? Or would Knox in your view still have the right to tell her truth as she saw it, however violating others might find that telling?

And as for good faith and bad faith, I wouldn't claim to know why Knox does the things she does - I wouldn't really claim to know why most people do what they do - humans are very complex! So I feel like I can, to some extent, judge the actions, but not the motivations?. It is interesting, as it does feel from this thread like Knox has some very passionate supporters who have a strong conviction that all of her motivations are completely laudable - so she is clearly doing something right! The degree of loyalty she has inspired does give me pause (and I mean this respectfully) as it's clear her writing, artistic endeavours etc mean a great deal to a
lot of people.

@ilovelurchers

I do feel like we're not quite connecting, here.

Details of Kercher's sex life, including that Knox supplied her with condoms, had already been revealed by other parties (and in more intimate detail than it sounds like Twisted Tale covered). It doesn't sound as though anything is "exposed" in Twisted Tale - more that it retells previously reported facts as a high level.

The supposed relevance of Kercher and Knox's respective sex lives was central to the theory of the prosecution case and the British and Italian media coverage, and is something that Knox has (rightly) pushed back on.

I'm also not really clear how Knox can meaningfully detail her (6-7 week long) relationship to Kercher without addressing what it involved - initial socializing consisting of going to bars and hanging out with the boys downstairs (one of whom Kercher was sleeping with), before they began moving in separate social circles. If you take out those aspects, there's little relationship to speak of.

Re-characterizing their social interactions to sanatize the "sordid" aspects would only make sense if you are starting from the proposition that Kercher's sex life and drug use is relevant to her murder. The alternative is to sideline Knox and Kercher's relationship altogether, which would also be very stange and dubious.

And it is not Knox who portrayed either Knox or Kercher's lifestyles (including their sex lives) as relevant to the murder - that was the prosecution and tabloids. It was central to both prosecution theories and the media reporting. They painted Kercher as two extremes - first, that she was a sexual deviant, before pivoting to characterizing her as saintly, traditional, and uncomfortable at the mere sight of condoms.

Two false, harmful versions of Kercher were advanced, and relentlessly so, in order first to demonize her and then to demonize another sexually active woman. Knox has always maintained that they were both unremarkable young women, both of whom happened to be in unremarkable sexual relationships at the time, and which had no bearing on Meredith's murder.

Of course Kercher would be fully entitled to her say, had she survived in the circumstances you describe - though I do find it hard to imagine her taking issue with Knox, specifically, for repeating unremarkable claims first made public by other witnesses (including her romantic interest), particularly when contrasted to certain of the other characterizations presented of her in the media.

I do think Knox would remain entitled to her say, nonetheless. When the whole world (well, two countries), have obsessed over and talked at length about Knox"s lifestyle, and how similar or contrasting it was to Kercher's, I simply cannot get my head around why she would not have that right.

This is especially the case because, whereas you seem to be treating Knox's accounts as if they were a "tell all", they are a response to a story that had already been extensively told, and as though it revealed new details about Kercher's sexual encounters or cannabis use, which it did not.

I firmly see Knox's accounts (as I understand them) as a rejection of the misogynistic portrayals painted of both her and Kercher, which still seem deeply embedded in some people's minds. Far beyond Knox being entitled to "set the record straight", I think its societally important that she does.

@Ilovelurchers - I am always fascinated by the conflation of support for someones position and being called a fan or supporter of theirs. why does that happen, do you think? It often seems to be a way to discount the other sides views.

I have been thinking about the Baby Reindeer controversy. No one is telling Gadd to shut up even though him telling his story has had repercussions. And I mentioned the podcast with Andrew Malkinson. Again, no one seems to be telling him to be quiet. Could it be that we all (society) just love a woman to hate?

Yeah, I'm really unclear if there is anyone in the thread who has suggested they're a "fan" of Knox.

I havent digested any of her media, other than a few clips of her stand-up. I've read some of her public statements.

I am, however, aware of what the Italian justice system and the British tabloids did to her (and sometimes continue to do to her) and the appalling misogyny it reveals. It was, and remains, absolutely abhorrent.

Attitudes like that need challenging, because they are harmful to women every single day, and to try to prevent others being treated like Knox (I'm sure many others have been, just not with the same extent of international visibility).

I can only understand the pushback against Knox, from people who consider themselves feminisits, through the lens of ignorance of the details or the radicalization of having consumed the appalling (internationally condemned) media coverage in the UK.

I can appreciate, and even share, sympathy for the Kerchers without thinking that the right thing to do is sweep the whole thing under a rug.

I support what Knox is doing, without having any substantive views on her as a person.

And, @ilovelurchers, I do struggle with your para on judging the actions, not the motivations, when you have speculated a couple of times that Knox may have selected the "comedy" category for some sort of alterior purpose. It very much feels as though you have been judging what her motivations might be, and your views on those motivations.

That applies to how Kercher was portrayed in the show, too.

That's not quite true - there were at least three Baby Reindeer threads at the time and there were posters on at least one of them, who questioned whether RG had the right to embellish/blur fact and fiction and whether Netflix had a duty of care, when the real-life "Martha" was so easily recognisable.
That case is still pending as Netflix appealed its right to go ahead, citing dramatic licence/creative storytelling (versus FH's claim that it depicted a conviction).

Yes, but the tenor of the debate, how long it lasted for, the language used was all very different . I was someone who, while enjoying the series, was disquieted about the later revelations. But I don’t remember it being as vitriolic as the Knox discussion. Granted it’s not about a murder, but I really feel that when it’s a woman, there’s a level of meanness over and above.

Having said that, the more I read about Jason Arday, the more sickened I am by our press.

mumsnet threads is very different from the media furore that Knox received

I don't see how Twisted Tale and Baby Reindeer are comparable tbh.

The issue with Baby Reindeer was that it contained serious misstatements of fact, despite claiming to be a true story.

Twisted Tale, as I understand it, is consistent with reported facts, and presented as an individual perspective.

(Meaning that Baby Reindeer is far more deserving of backlash).

Well that’s my point really. Although I was thinking more of the discussion about Gadd and Knox themselves than the actual shows. I don’t remember anyone vilifying him the way Knox is talked about. Maybe they did and I just don’t remember it but it seems the debate around him did not spiral into such personal attacks. And the tone of the reports were different.