“The thing I can’t wrap my mind around is – if the DNA evidence isn’t credible, how did it get to this point?”. That’s the question posed by Anderson Cooper in a brief clip from the past that’s featured in the new Netflix documentary Amanda Knox, directed and produced by both Rod Blackhurst and Brian McGinn. It’s also the question that the documentary answers in a refreshing way.
Beautifully shot and layered with exquisite string music, Amanda Knox resets the basic narrative of the events that led to Amanda Knox’s conviction and then exoneration following her trial over her alleged role in the death of Meredith Kercher. It’s an objective narrative, which is a necessary approach that’s been a long time coming due to the rephrehensibly speculative narrative that was set forth by an Italian Prosecutor, which was in turn salaciously and irresponsibly repeated by international media organizations.
I don’t mind spoiling the fact that in exonerating Knox former boyfriend Rafaela Sollecito, Italy’s Supreme Court found “stunning flaws” in the presented evidence, which was derived from a “frantic search” of an investigation. More damningly for the prosecution, the Court found a complete lack of biological traces to tie either Knox or Sollecito to the crime. I don’t mind spoiling those conclusions because they already exist in the Court record. Also because this is real life, and continuing to push an objectively factual narrative is of the utmost importance to Knox and Sollecito’s reputation, as well as the public’s understanding of justice.
The basic facts are that in November 2007, Meredith Kercher was killed, half naked and covered by a blanket. The house door was found open, a window was broken, blood was splattered, and there was evidence of lacerations, as well as male DNA inside the victim. Common sense, procedural crime dramas, and countless real world criminal cases inform us that in the vast majority of the time, such a murderous sexual assault scenario was most likely perpetrated by a singular male. Certainly, that initial hunch is not the end of the story. A thorough, objective, factual investigation must be conducted prior to forming a conclusion.
Knox’s case, however, was prosecuted by one Giuliano Mignini. Mignini is a man who, by his own account, fancies himself a Sherlock Holmes. And yet, he has all the intellectual discipline of a carnival barker. You see, Mignini immediately bypassed objective fact gathering and went straight to concocting wildly preposterous scenarios based on grossly inadequate logic. In Mignini’s mind, it is not possible that a man would cover a victim with a blanket. Ordinary milling about that doesn’t conform to Mignini’s own narrow definition of acceptable behavior is construed as evidence of guilt.
Mignini’s fantastical tale of a sex game gone wrong was concocted in his own mind, and not supported by actual evidence. His case hinged on a public that was all to eager to lap up in intriguing story. The only evidence against Knox and Sollecito was faulty information obtained by abusive interrogation tactics, as well as DNA that was collected in a grossly negligent manner that ignored even basic chain of custody and anti-contamination principles. About the rigid demands of scientific DNA evidence, one of the two independent forensic experts stated during the documentary that “You can’t interpret it to mean whatever you want”. Italy’s Supreme Court agreed.
While I admit to an intense dislike for Prosecutor Mignini’s actions, my perspective is informed by an adherence to objective truth and logic. Logic dictates that for every unsupported Mignini contention, there are alternative, usually simpler explanations. The documentary approaches this objective perspective in a much more subtle way.
Knox, Sollecito, Mignini, and Daily Mail journalist Nick Pisa are each given ample space to recount the fateful events from their perspective while the filmmakers occasionally weave in factual narrative. It’s not terribly in-depth due to the constricting nature of an hour and a half documentary. But it’s enough to tell the basic narrative.
Knox and Sollecito focus mainly on their relationship, their experience, and how it affected them. Mignini Was allowed to hang himself with his own words, in the end giving him space to to admit that he could have made a mistake. Independent forensic experts provide additional objective context. And Pisa explains the perspective of the media as it covered the trial from the initial crime scene all the way to exoneration. Combined, the documentary provides an excellent broad overview of of the Amanda Knox story, including unique perspectives that describe how we got to this point.
On the possibility that he made a mistake, Mignini mused, “Amanda and Sollecito. If they are innocent, I hope they are able to forget the suffering that they’ve endured.
In the end, it is clear that speculation can be an incredibly dangerous game. Whatever happened to Meredith Kercher that fateful day, there is simply no credible evidence to support a murder conviction; especially by the American standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Again, the high court of Italy agrees. In order to accomplish substantial justice and avoid ruining the lives of the innocent, it is vitally important to maintain rigid adherence to ethic legal practice, objective fact gathering of credible evidence, and sound logic. Amanda Knox the documentary helps paint that picture in a sobering and compelling way.
If after watching the documentary you’re eager for even more details on what happened, you may also want to give Amanda Knox’s memoir Waiting to Be Heard a try. It’s worth the read, just as the documentary is well worth a viewing.