Amanda, you’re part of a unique class of celebrity who became well-known not because of something they did, but because of something that happened to them. For the public, that moment fades, but for you, I imagine it never truly ended. How has it felt to carry that kind of attention, being known for a single, attention-grabbing event, compared to the way we usually think about celebrity, where people are known for their talents or accomplishments?
Amanda Knox was one of my first "the media narrative massively got it wrong" moments so I'd be very interested in her response to this as well.
I hadn't followed the case much but had a vague impression of "attractive American college student killed her roommate and acted weird after the fact". Then I randomly read a deep-dive into the case in like early 2011 maybe? Insert "mind blown" emoji. It was clear that there was absolutely no way she was guilty, but the media narratives in the UK and Italian press were completely out of control because it made for a good story that fit certain cultural narratives and sold papers. (How the Italian justice system actually carried forth prosecutions is something I'll never understand).
The Italian justice once convicted some geologists for manslaughter for failing to predict an earthquake (like this it was eventually corrected, but still!)
To what degree does she read the nasty comments people make about her on social media? How does she compartmentalize the scorn she gets to protect her sense of self?
I know a lot of the families of murder victims whose cases resulted in an initial wrongful conviction can have some complicated feelings about the results—even when there is good evidence for overturning a verdict and a new suspect. Do you know much about how the Kercher family reacted to your conviction being overturned and Guede's standing? I ask mainly because the media fixation on you was so obsessive that it completely overshadowed the crime itself. (And I can't help but feel like the family's ability to feel a sense of justice gets cut short when there is BOTH a wrongful conviction and not enough attention is paid to the victim.)
Also, FWIW, I really admire your willingness to talk about this chapter in your life. You handle it with an incredible amount of grace.
Obviously the most important question: What does Amanda think about sharing a birthday with OJ Simpson, Jodi Arias (murdered Travis Alexander), and Steven Avery (Making a Murderer), and does she feel that Tom Hanks sharing the same birthday as well goes far enough to mitigate the impact of the other three?
This question really made me laugh. Mainly because I share my birthday with David Bowie, Elvis Presley and Stephen Hawking and choose to see that as a good thing, while skirting over all of their less positive behaviours – helped by Shirley Bassey who adds a touch of Welsh glamour without any pesky sex pest vibes
I was going to say that must be August 16 — but that’s the day Elvis died, I think, not his birthday ! Which I know because he died on my cousin’s birthday!
I went on Amanda's show a while ago to talk about the Jens Soering case and I found the experience delightful. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/72-debunking-innocence-andrew-hammel/id1494368441?i=1000628715335. I was also deeply impressed with her and her husbands' willingness to give a respectful hearing to evidence which challenged their priors. As I noted on my blog, she displayed far more journalistic integrity than many of the officially-trained "journalists" covering that case.
As for the pro-Knox-guilt commenters in this thread, there will always be a few dead-enders out there, but the evidence that Knox and Sollecito were tried unfairly and are actually innocent is conclusive. Meredith Kercher was killed by a drifter with Ivoirian roots named Rudy Guede, who was convicted of her murder, released after a ludicrously brief prison term (IMHO), and has now been charged with stalking another woman. All of the theories positing Knox and Sollecito's involvement were absurd, and the Italian Supreme Court deftly annihilated them.
As for a question, I would like to take up one of the previous commenter's suggestions to ask Knox about tactical choices made by the Innocence Project recently. While they've done an enormous amount of good over the decades, I think some of their recent choices -- such as supporting Pervis Tyrone Payne and Adnan Syed -- are more than questionable and have harmed their credibility. Is their process for screening cases perhaps being tainted by non-legal considerations such as an inmate's fame or a desire to pick cases that fit an intersectional agenda?
If you notice… any “pro” defendant supporters, have a very tenuous knowledge of the case. I’d put money on “I watched a documentary on Netflix.” To base guilt/not guilty off an hours worth… pretty weak. And then there’s “she’s a female, so I have to believe.” Closed minded. One way view.
I have written quite a bit about the criminal justice system and true crime. If you'd read what I've written, you'd know I consider true-crime documentaries to be worthless as sources of evidence. I based my opinion on an extensive study of the case documents, especially the 2015 opinion of the Court of Cassation striking down both the Knox and Sollecito convictions.
There is no question Knox brought a lot of suspicion on herself by her odd behavior, but the prosecution's theory that she and Sollecito decided to participate in a violent "sex game" with a random drifter they barely knew was always preposterous. And as the Court of Cassation points out, the state's theory required Knox and Sollecito to have been able to clean up their own footprints and DNA traces with bleach while leaving dozens of clear traces of Rudy Guede's DNA all over the body, bedroom, and house intact. This would have been some feat, considering most of Guede's DNA traces were invisible to the naked eye.
How come her supporters routinely say that she was interrogated 53 hours when in fact her interrogation started at 11:30pm and she made her statement falsely accusing Patrick Lamumba no later than about 1:45am the same night?
How come even the Italian courts that acquitted her for murder still found that her claims of being hit by police were false, still find that she was at the murder scene when Meredith were killed, and still find that there were multiple attackers and Rudy along with someone else killed Meredith?
Why did you and Rafaelle both turn your cell phones off the night of the murder and turned them on the next morning?
If you and Rafaelle were asleep until 10am the morning after the murder, how come Rafaelle's computer showed that someone had been using it before 7am?
Why did you call and wake up your mother at 3am Seattle time the day after the murder, before Meredith's body was discovered?
How come you said that you were incredibly worried about Meredith's door being locked when you told the police in front of witnesses that this was no big deal and she always kept it locked?
Why was your lamp found in the locked room with Meredith's body?
Who was the person you were eavesdropped by the Italian police as discussing with Rafaelle at the police station when Rafaelle was brought in for questioning?
Why were mixtures of your DNA and Meredith's DNA found in multiple blood drops in the cottage? If it was just because you lived there, why were no similar blood drops found at all with either of the other roommates?
Why won't you pay the money awarded to Patrick Lamumba, who multiple courts (including ones that acquitted you of murder) have now held you guilty of falsely accusing?
BTW if anyone is curious of how much evidence there really was of at the very least her being at the crime scene and covering for Rafaelle, if not her guilt, read here starting at post 6643 and scroll down. The story she tells now has little relationship to what actually happened (and that is true even if there is reasonable doubt as to her guilt).
I would really like to know to Amanda stays so positive despite the large amount of negative feeling towards her. I’m in awe of her, her ability to be true to who she is, her purpose and to be able to block out all the negativity.
If my roommate was violently murdered, I would certainly be shaken and jumpy for a long time after. Do you think that your experience being falsely accused of murder focused your mind and reduced your emotional trauma? Or do you thing that the constant reminder of the crime prolong whatever trauma you did experience?
I suppose it is hard to tell how you would have felt otherwise, but I am curious what effect the injustice system had on the initial trauma's halflife.
Amanda: I followed your case closely because I was also studying abroad at the time.
The reporting on the case gave me daily whiplash, until it became clear that you were being railroaded by Italian prosecutors. But one article sticks with me as the bottom of the barrel for journalistic integrity: Charles Mudede's "If She Did It" published in The Stranger. Did articles like this reach you at the time of the trial, and if so, how did you maintain your sanity?
Follow-up for Katie: How does Mudede's article fit with your experience at The Stranger?
Amanda is a thoughtful speaker, I’m sure this will be a great conversation. I’d be interested in her opinion on the evolution of the Innocence Project over the past decade or so - I used to hold a high opinion of them but now I see them fighting to free rapists and murderers who are clearly guilty, including by distorting the facts of the case and tacitly encouraging harassment of victims and witnesses. Their efforts are buoyed by true crime podcasts and TV shows that need a new innocence case to present to their audience each week, and the Facebook groups that follow them (it’s not an innocence case, but the recent episode on Aubreigh Wyatt touched on this). My theory is that the rise of DNA testing has significantly decreased wrongful convictions, so the Innocence Project had to start pursuing more cases where innocence is unlikely to keep sustaining their staff and finances at the same level (similarly to LGB groups pursuing unpopular causes following the legalization of gay marriage).
I don’t have a question- I just want anted to say that I listened to Amanda Knox’s series on the Waking Up app, and I found it so moving.
I was going through a really hard time and listening to it gave me a lot of solace.
She seems to be a remarkable woman.
Amanda, you’re part of a unique class of celebrity who became well-known not because of something they did, but because of something that happened to them. For the public, that moment fades, but for you, I imagine it never truly ended. How has it felt to carry that kind of attention, being known for a single, attention-grabbing event, compared to the way we usually think about celebrity, where people are known for their talents or accomplishments?
Oh how interesting! I'd be interest to know how your experiences with news media as a subject have impacted how you consume the news these days?
Amanda Knox was one of my first "the media narrative massively got it wrong" moments so I'd be very interested in her response to this as well.
I hadn't followed the case much but had a vague impression of "attractive American college student killed her roommate and acted weird after the fact". Then I randomly read a deep-dive into the case in like early 2011 maybe? Insert "mind blown" emoji. It was clear that there was absolutely no way she was guilty, but the media narratives in the UK and Italian press were completely out of control because it made for a good story that fit certain cultural narratives and sold papers. (How the Italian justice system actually carried forth prosecutions is something I'll never understand).
The Italian justice once convicted some geologists for manslaughter for failing to predict an earthquake (like this it was eventually corrected, but still!)
To what degree does she read the nasty comments people make about her on social media? How does she compartmentalize the scorn she gets to protect her sense of self?
What is the best advice you have for shaking off what other people think of you?
her waking up series touches on this. recommend!
I know a lot of the families of murder victims whose cases resulted in an initial wrongful conviction can have some complicated feelings about the results—even when there is good evidence for overturning a verdict and a new suspect. Do you know much about how the Kercher family reacted to your conviction being overturned and Guede's standing? I ask mainly because the media fixation on you was so obsessive that it completely overshadowed the crime itself. (And I can't help but feel like the family's ability to feel a sense of justice gets cut short when there is BOTH a wrongful conviction and not enough attention is paid to the victim.)
Also, FWIW, I really admire your willingness to talk about this chapter in your life. You handle it with an incredible amount of grace.
Obviously the most important question: What does Amanda think about sharing a birthday with OJ Simpson, Jodi Arias (murdered Travis Alexander), and Steven Avery (Making a Murderer), and does she feel that Tom Hanks sharing the same birthday as well goes far enough to mitigate the impact of the other three?
This question really made me laugh. Mainly because I share my birthday with David Bowie, Elvis Presley and Stephen Hawking and choose to see that as a good thing, while skirting over all of their less positive behaviours – helped by Shirley Bassey who adds a touch of Welsh glamour without any pesky sex pest vibes
Bassey 88. No one’s, “booming “ grannie.
I saw her perform at the BAFTAs in the Royal Albert Hall and boy can she boom still
I was going to say that must be August 16 — but that’s the day Elvis died, I think, not his birthday ! Which I know because he died on my cousin’s birthday!
I went on Amanda's show a while ago to talk about the Jens Soering case and I found the experience delightful. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/72-debunking-innocence-andrew-hammel/id1494368441?i=1000628715335. I was also deeply impressed with her and her husbands' willingness to give a respectful hearing to evidence which challenged their priors. As I noted on my blog, she displayed far more journalistic integrity than many of the officially-trained "journalists" covering that case.
As for the pro-Knox-guilt commenters in this thread, there will always be a few dead-enders out there, but the evidence that Knox and Sollecito were tried unfairly and are actually innocent is conclusive. Meredith Kercher was killed by a drifter with Ivoirian roots named Rudy Guede, who was convicted of her murder, released after a ludicrously brief prison term (IMHO), and has now been charged with stalking another woman. All of the theories positing Knox and Sollecito's involvement were absurd, and the Italian Supreme Court deftly annihilated them.
As for a question, I would like to take up one of the previous commenter's suggestions to ask Knox about tactical choices made by the Innocence Project recently. While they've done an enormous amount of good over the decades, I think some of their recent choices -- such as supporting Pervis Tyrone Payne and Adnan Syed -- are more than questionable and have harmed their credibility. Is their process for screening cases perhaps being tainted by non-legal considerations such as an inmate's fame or a desire to pick cases that fit an intersectional agenda?
If you notice… any “pro” defendant supporters, have a very tenuous knowledge of the case. I’d put money on “I watched a documentary on Netflix.” To base guilt/not guilty off an hours worth… pretty weak. And then there’s “she’s a female, so I have to believe.” Closed minded. One way view.
I have written quite a bit about the criminal justice system and true crime. If you'd read what I've written, you'd know I consider true-crime documentaries to be worthless as sources of evidence. I based my opinion on an extensive study of the case documents, especially the 2015 opinion of the Court of Cassation striking down both the Knox and Sollecito convictions.
There is no question Knox brought a lot of suspicion on herself by her odd behavior, but the prosecution's theory that she and Sollecito decided to participate in a violent "sex game" with a random drifter they barely knew was always preposterous. And as the Court of Cassation points out, the state's theory required Knox and Sollecito to have been able to clean up their own footprints and DNA traces with bleach while leaving dozens of clear traces of Rudy Guede's DNA all over the body, bedroom, and house intact. This would have been some feat, considering most of Guede's DNA traces were invisible to the naked eye.
https://www.themurderofmeredithkercher.net/docupl/filelibrary/docs/motivations/2015-03-27-Motivations-Cassazione-Marasca-Bruno-annulling-murder-conviction-Knox-Sollecito-translation-TJMK.pdf
How come her supporters routinely say that she was interrogated 53 hours when in fact her interrogation started at 11:30pm and she made her statement falsely accusing Patrick Lamumba no later than about 1:45am the same night?
How come even the Italian courts that acquitted her for murder still found that her claims of being hit by police were false, still find that she was at the murder scene when Meredith were killed, and still find that there were multiple attackers and Rudy along with someone else killed Meredith?
Why did you and Rafaelle both turn your cell phones off the night of the murder and turned them on the next morning?
If you and Rafaelle were asleep until 10am the morning after the murder, how come Rafaelle's computer showed that someone had been using it before 7am?
Why did you call and wake up your mother at 3am Seattle time the day after the murder, before Meredith's body was discovered?
How come you said that you were incredibly worried about Meredith's door being locked when you told the police in front of witnesses that this was no big deal and she always kept it locked?
Why was your lamp found in the locked room with Meredith's body?
Who was the person you were eavesdropped by the Italian police as discussing with Rafaelle at the police station when Rafaelle was brought in for questioning?
Why were mixtures of your DNA and Meredith's DNA found in multiple blood drops in the cottage? If it was just because you lived there, why were no similar blood drops found at all with either of the other roommates?
Why won't you pay the money awarded to Patrick Lamumba, who multiple courts (including ones that acquitted you of murder) have now held you guilty of falsely accusing?
Well, you get the idea....
BTW if anyone is curious of how much evidence there really was of at the very least her being at the crime scene and covering for Rafaelle, if not her guilt, read here starting at post 6643 and scroll down. The story she tells now has little relationship to what actually happened (and that is true even if there is reasonable doubt as to her guilt).
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/34/other-other-topics/amanda-knox-innocent-american-trial-italy-cold-blooded-murderer-648983/index266.html#post29700628
I would really like to know to Amanda stays so positive despite the large amount of negative feeling towards her. I’m in awe of her, her ability to be true to who she is, her purpose and to be able to block out all the negativity.
Amanda, did you make friends while in jail, if so, do you keep in touch with them?
If my roommate was violently murdered, I would certainly be shaken and jumpy for a long time after. Do you think that your experience being falsely accused of murder focused your mind and reduced your emotional trauma? Or do you thing that the constant reminder of the crime prolong whatever trauma you did experience?
I suppose it is hard to tell how you would have felt otherwise, but I am curious what effect the injustice system had on the initial trauma's halflife.
1. How did she feel about being in Italy the last time she was there? How have her feelings about and perceptions about Italy changed with time?
2. How has she tried to leverage her public notoriety for good? What are some recent justice-related projects she’s working on?
I just said aloud, "*That* Amanda Knox?". I don't know much about her other than the infamy, but I'm certainly open-minded.
Definitely not *this* Amanda Knox:
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/what-amanda-jetté-knox-learned-from-raising-her-transgender-child-1.5224066
😮🤔🤨🫣
Amanda: I followed your case closely because I was also studying abroad at the time.
The reporting on the case gave me daily whiplash, until it became clear that you were being railroaded by Italian prosecutors. But one article sticks with me as the bottom of the barrel for journalistic integrity: Charles Mudede's "If She Did It" published in The Stranger. Did articles like this reach you at the time of the trial, and if so, how did you maintain your sanity?
Follow-up for Katie: How does Mudede's article fit with your experience at The Stranger?
Link to the article for those who missed it: https://www.thestranger.com/features/2009/12/10/2929733/if-she-did-it
Amanda is a thoughtful speaker, I’m sure this will be a great conversation. I’d be interested in her opinion on the evolution of the Innocence Project over the past decade or so - I used to hold a high opinion of them but now I see them fighting to free rapists and murderers who are clearly guilty, including by distorting the facts of the case and tacitly encouraging harassment of victims and witnesses. Their efforts are buoyed by true crime podcasts and TV shows that need a new innocence case to present to their audience each week, and the Facebook groups that follow them (it’s not an innocence case, but the recent episode on Aubreigh Wyatt touched on this). My theory is that the rise of DNA testing has significantly decreased wrongful convictions, so the Innocence Project had to start pursuing more cases where innocence is unlikely to keep sustaining their staff and finances at the same level (similarly to LGB groups pursuing unpopular causes following the legalization of gay marriage).