bocomoj First of all, people, a documentary doesn't present both sides. Documentaries are the media equivalent of a debate argument or a persuasive essay. A documentary presents a claim and then supports it with information. Documentaries are biased by design.For unbiased information, we are supposed to look to the news and journalists. Within the first few minutes of this film, we can see that trust is misplaced. The "journalist" recorded here appears truly deplorable. It is clear the media smeared Knox by printing every fabricated or insinuated tale as though it were fact. Foxy Knoxy? Lucifer-like, satanic witch? Yeah, that's evenhanded journalism assuring a fair trial. *scoff*Drug-fueled sex orgy? Because they smoked a little weed? Puh-leeeease.The investigator comes off as a pompous ass. Knox is an anarchist because she doesn't like being questioned by authorities? Pretty sure only the truly stupid are cooperative when they have been accused of murder.I'm dumbfounded by the people screaming for Knox's head based upon the "damning" physical evidence. You mean they found Knox's DNA and fingerprints in her own home? Wow, what a revelation! Listen, your DNA and fingerprints cover just about every square inch of your residence, including the bedroom of anyone living with you. Skin and hair are everywhere (that's what dust is mostly made of), and don't tell me you never hung out in your roommate's room listening to music, chatting, or smoking a bowl.Knox was acquitted. That means she is presumed innocent. End of story.

emilyclairegreenwood This is a good documentary for a brief look into the infamous story of Amanda Knox, and I particularly like the way they have this led by interview pieces to camera with Amanda herself. However, I feel as though the documentary was almost slightly biased and didn't spend enough time looking into the other avenues of how the situation came about. It's worth a watch for sure, Amanda is an odd and interesting character to watch, but don't expect edge-of-seat gripping.

George X. If you are looking for definitive answers, this documentary will disappoint you. But if you want to become familiar with this case and see how justice can easily go from blind to hobbled when the media are involved, this is definitely worth a watch.Although it clearly supports Amanda Knox's side of the story and strongly advocates her innocence, this film isn't so much about the verdict. Rather, it highlights how flawed a crime investigation can be when the media and the public put such immense pressure on officers and detectives. How amoral and ruthless the media can be for the sake of selling "the perfect story", and how the public's opinion is so easily and quickly shaped because of it.The sheer indifference that journalist Nick Pisa shows when proclaiming how Rudy Guede's story "wasn't interesting" was very telling. Also, it is completely baffling how the head of the investigation ended up being promoted after doing such a stunningly bad job in this case.In the end, whether you side with Knox or not, this film -while not necessarily having the depth that one might seek in such a documentary- clearly demonstrates how rushed and weak the case against her was, the product of a botched investigation fueled by media frenzy.

Rick-34 The movie and the reviews here show how people can be so adamant about the need to punish somebody for a crime that they buy into the most ludicrous theories. Amanda Knox was persecuted by the police in Perugia for committing the transgression of being a "loose woman". What do we know about this case? - Rudy Guede's DNA was at the scene, a fact that makes no sense unless he was involved in the murder - In a Skype chat with a friend, Guede said Amanda wasn't there. - Guede had a history of violence and breaking in to homes. - High pressure tactics were used by the police to get Raffaele to change his alibi for Amanda, and to trick Amanda into a vague confession - The vague confession by Amanda implicated her boss, but this theory was discarded by the police. Instead, Guede was inserted into the case while the confession by Amanda was treated as evidence of her guilt. - the treatment of the DNA evidence by the Italian police was atrociously sloppyMany 1-star reviews are being given by people who are convinced of Amanda's guilt. They say that the film is "biased", apparently because the filmmakers didn't give equal weight to a pro-guilt side. Well...that's not what "biased" means. Yes, the filmmakers clearly feel that Amanda Knox is innocent. You know who else does? The Italian courts. To make claims of bias, you have to go further than to say that a person has an opinion you disagree with. You have to show that they view evidence in a partial fashion: discarding evidence that disagrees with predetermined conclusions while overstating the importance of evidence that agrees with them. There is bias in this case, as the documentary clearly shows. The prosecutor pursued a case against Amanda Knox for clearly irrational reasons, and the theories he uses are inconsistent and often ludicrous. His interviews are the most painful parts of the movie. He says things like "A female murdered covers the body of a female victim; a man does not. That's why I suspected a woman from the start." This is ludicrous. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Solecitto lost years of their lives to this nonsense - emotionally driven aversion to evidence-based pursuit of the truth. Bravo to the filmmakers for giving this story the care and attention it deserves.One final note: shame on all the tabloid journalists who fed the frenzy of insanity. The interview of the journalist who published Amanda's diary shows that he feels no shame at what he did - that he feels comfortable with the violation of her privacy. I wonder if he'll ever figure out what he did wrong here.