By: Valerie Milano
Hayden Panattiere and Marcia Gay Harden
Cable Press Tour, Pasadena, CA (HOLLYWOOD TODAY) 2/22/11
The story of the American, Amanda Knox, who was convicted of the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy, along with Rudy Guede, has been in the news since 2007, and last night Lifetime aired “Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy”. Amid the flurry of opinions and articles about whether or not the television movie may have an effect on the appeal, the show must go on it seems.
Knox, played by Hayden Panettiere, is already facing additional charges due to statements she’s made, but the makers of this film feel they’ve represented both sides of the story. Executive producer Trevor Walton told Hollywood Today, “I think we were very, very careful not to be partial in the way that we told the story. Amanda Knox is facing two situations. One is a slander case, and then the appeal. But what our story does is tell, factually, what happened up to the point of her arrest. So we feel that we’ve done this very responsibly and should have no effect whatsoever on any ongoing trial.”
And how does the actress playing Amanda feel about it? One might think she has a clearer perspective having been in her shoes, so to speak, “You know, it’s one of those stories, which is why it’s so compelling and why I was so interested in playing it. It’s one of those really riveting stories where you just don’t know. And I mean, we spent five weeks and I’m not just telling you this just to say this genuinely spent five weeks every day talking about it and talking about it and reading about it and looking at new evidence, trying to form some sort of opinion about it. And it’s like she’s innocent; she’s guilty; she’s innocent; she’s guilty; she’s innocent. I can’t say that I have an opinion, and that’s why the story is so interesting the facts and what people said and the changes in stories. It really all comes together to form this incredible story that I think people are really genuinely interested and curious in. And I don’t know that we’ll ever really know.”
In the Italian court, the trial judge writes a report documenting the events from the courtroom. Academy Award winning actress Marcia Gay Harden’ who plays Amanda’s mother in the movie explained just how the report added to the facts in the case allowed this movie to include all sides of the story. “It’s called The Massei report, Judge Massei’s report. It’s 400 pages long, and it was available to anyone who wanted to read it, and most of us did read it. And within that report is absolutely specific details about what happened in the courtroom, the DNA, or the situation that each side presents for the case. So you can read it, and then you allow that to fall upon yourself and influence you in whatever way it will and whatever way your decision’s going to be. Then, you take that, and you see this report over here that maybe talks about Rudy Guede coming back at a certain time on a train and that’s a person’s new person’s report. And then that’s in conflict with something else, and then you become the detective, and you start trying to piece down what’s factual. Fortunately for us, Lifetime is extraordinarily specific about checking their facts, and if there was some discrepancy in the script, it would go right back to the proper sources to make sure everything that was said was fact based.
“There’s a story beyond true and guilty, however, which is a story of emotion, a story of families being destroyed, mothers losing their daughters.”
6 responses so far ↓
1 Eddy Perez // Feb 22, 2011 at 10:13 am
Very nice.
2 bob barlow // Feb 22, 2011 at 10:38 am
the amanda knox movie on lifetime is a true example of how commercial sucess trumps decency in this country. nbc lifetime is discusting, the movie was simply an exploitation of a tragic situation. a true travesty. problem is there are people who will think that piece of crap is true. good job nbc no wonder your in ratings purgatory,thats where you belong.
3 clay // Feb 22, 2011 at 11:59 am
Bob Barlow, I could NOT have put it in better words. I have studied this case and do know all the facts. I don’t think Rudy really intended on killing Mez. Her family said she would have put up a good fight, being that she was very welled schooled in self defense. Rudy past doesn’t seem to be that of a cold calulating killing monster, His rent was due and he faced eviction, he resorted to his way of getting by (Which was not working). However in the grils cottage, which everyone would assume would be empty during all St. Day, he got in over his head. sadly we all know the out come. I would think Mez’s family would want the truth, not a sensation.
4 Dennis Klazen // Feb 22, 2011 at 1:03 pm
I LOVE HAYDEN PANETTIERE SOOOOOOOOO MUCH!!!!!!!!!!! I LIKE TO SUCK MY OWN COCK AND WANK OVER PICTURES OF GIRLS!!!!!!!!! I THINK I IZ SO COOL BECAUSE I THINK I HAS SPOKEN TO HAYDEN AND I USES LOTS OF EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!!!!!! THE MORE EXCLAMATION MARKS THE MORE I LOVE HAYDEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
5 Michaelsmth // Feb 24, 2011 at 9:52 am
Review of Lifetime’s Amanda Knox Story
When Lifetime says The Amanda Knox Story is “based” on a true story, and “fact-driven” , they are using code to indicate the enormous amount of liberties taken with what actually happened. This should be obvious to any intelligent viewer who watches the combination of fact and fiction with a critical eye. After all, there are numerous scenes showing Amanda (Hayden) and/or Raffaele alone (unless Dornheim was a fly on the wall). The big question is: How many Lifetime viewers will think hard about what they are viewing, and care about finding out the truth? A bigger a question: Is Dornheim trying to make Amanda look guilty?
The movie is filled with factual errors, and takes great liberty with who says what. Amanda took the room in the cottage before Meredith, but traveled, so Meredith only moved in first. No biggie. Amanda’s mom, Edda Mellas, was at an airport in Switzerland, not in Perugia, when she got the call from stepdad Chris that Amanda was arrested. Rudy Guede was arrested on a train, not off the street: Also not serious. However, a friend in the coffee shop where Amanda worked called her Foxy Knoxy like it was a nickname: This is a lie! It gets worse!
The cottage used in the film, including the size of the room the murder took place in, was 50% bigger than the actual cottage: This is big – there was not space for 4 people in Meredith’s room, making the group murder theory very unlikely. Raffaele is shown secretively calling police after the Communication Police arrive: Major error – he called before, just like he told them! The movie implies he lied. There never was any incident of Amanda and Meredith greeting Rudy Guede on the steps in Perugia, or going to a party with him and smoking dope: This is a serious falsehood ! They barely knew him.
So the question becomes: How damaging will the liberties the film takes be to Amanda’s credibility? Will it get viewers to look closer at how weak the case is, or convince them there was a sound basis to put Amanda on trial? This is the big unknown!
The brutal interrogation scene, in which the accusation of Patrick was both dragged and coaxed out of Amanda is very accurate (except she wasn’t given water like Hayden was). The mob of police haranguing Amanda fully allows for the possibility she was hit on the back of the head. However, the film makes a serious omission: They fail to show Amanda writing out a statement in which she clearly says she may have imagined what she told the police. Later, when Mignini bellows out that Amanda allowed an innocent man to languish in prison by not retracting the statement (somewhat ironic – if not hypocritical), the film fails to make clear that Amanda had immediately retracted the statement as best she could while locked in solitary confinement.
Much more serious is how the film deals with accusations that Amanda’s behavior lacked empathy, and bordered on the bizarre. While even the family & friends allow that Amanda is unique, which is a good thing, suggesting her behavior indicated guilt is extreme. Here the film is hard to follow for anyone not already familiar with the details.
There are two scenes depicting Amanda (Hayden) in the police station on the first day. The first is the actual visit, the second comes from Filomena’s memory. In the actual (movie) visit, Amanda sitting on Raffaele’s lap and kissing him (as claimed by a number of real witnesses) is innocuous. She is stressed, and while the behavior is inappropriate, it does not come across as callous. However, when recounted by Filomena at the trial, Amanda is depicted as giggling and acting carefree. Will viewers remember the first scene, or believe the one from Filomena’s memory? This is followed by the most egregious misrepresentation of the film, Amanda’s remark on Meredith’s suffering, which I will address later.
The most notorious accusation, that Amanda did cartwheels in the police station, is factually inaccurate, but contextually correct. Amanda, relaxed and bored, having spent over 40 hours at the Questura from Nov.2nd through the fateful evening of Nov 5th, was studying while Raffaele was being interrogated. Believing she was there to help police (having refused to fly home despite the pleas of her mom), Amanda did some yoga exercises to stretch. A young policeman remarks on her limberness, and she does some cartwheels. The movie correctly shows the cartwheels were done out of boredom – totally natural and not in any way inappropriate. This is not the depiction of a guilty person.
However, the expressions Dornheim gratuitously puts on Amanda’s (Hayden’s) face (that no one could have observed) may make viewers seriously question the real Amanda’s innocence. One is while Meredith is making a mojito – a scary and ambiguous glare that quickly turns into a smile. Was Dornheim in the bar? This same ominous look comes on her face in a very touching scene. A shocked Amanda (Hayden) is told by Edda she must remain in prison for over a year while police investigate whether to try her or not. One moment she is sobbing, but then the scary look comes on Amanda’s face when she hugs her mother. Dornheim seems to be purposely telling the audience Amanda is faking emotions, and has something to hide. This is reinforced when Amanda, alone in her cell, watches on TV as Rudy is indicted. The expression Dornheim puts on Hayden’s face is the same, like she is deeply worried about a dark secret. This is all pure fiction – from the mind of Dornheim. Will it influence viewers to think the real Amanda is guilty?
Now we come to more damaging fictions. Amanda and Raffaele are seen accidentally stumbling on Meredith’s memorial. That they did not attend is established fact. Worse, they then run away, laughing and giggling. This is an intolerable liberty taken by Dornheim that borders on slander. How will viewers know this is total fiction?
Much more serious is a scene (based on fact) of Amanda (Hayden) taken to the cottage by police, where she becomes hysterical. In the real version the roommates, Filomena and Laura (not depicted in film – budget reasons?), were also there. However, Dornheim has Hayden get hysterical when Mignini (who wasn’t there) mentions missing kitchen knives. This is pure fiction! The controversial kitchen knife was arbitrarily picked out of a draw in Raffaele’s apartment a week later – it had no part of the Nov.3rd cottage visit, whatsoever. Showing Amanda (Hayden) get hysterical over the mention of a kitchen knife, rather than just the stress of returning to the cottage is a damning lie. On one hand Amanda is accused of lacking empathy. In one of numerous instances (she also started sobbing in Paola Grande’s car taking her to the Questura right after the body was discovered – which is never depicted in film) when Amanda does show her real, deeply felt horror at her friends murder, Dornheim turns it into a false accusation: Fear over discovery of the knife: A complete and total lie! This is outright slander, and loses the film any claim to being balanced and fair.
This brings us to a far more misleading and damning lie: Amanda’s alleged remark at the police station when one of Meredith’s friends (not Filomena) says she hopes Meredith didn’t suffer. According to witnesses, Amanda said “What do you f—ing think, she bled to death.” In the movie, Filomena recalls her saying (in a memory flashback): “What do you thing – her throat was cut”! The movie goes on to show how Mignini charges that Amanda could not have known that detail on the first day, proving she participated in the crime. This is what viewers are left with. What are the uninformed ones going to think?
Informed ones know that the details of Meredith’s grisly death were known, and discussed. Paola Grande, who is in the film as the friend who arrives with Filomena at the cottage when the body was found, testified she told Amanda on the way to the Questura. The issue of this remark was never used in the trial because it meant nothing. However, Dornheim allows viewers to believe Amanda had knowledge of the crime she couldn’t have unless she did it. A damning lie making her appear guilty. This removes any possibility that the film is fact-driven or fair. Dornheim is purposely attempting to make Amanda look guilty.
There are many, many more inaccuracies and falsehoods. However, I believe the above proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Dornheim meant to mislead viewers about the one thing that abounds in the Amanda Knox case – REASONABLE DOUBT !
6 Paul in Michigan // Feb 24, 2011 at 10:29 am
I have great respect for Marcia Gay Harden as an artist but her comments here leave a lot to be desired.
As Foreign Policy Magazine pointed out in an article called “Can Anyone Get a Fair Trial in Italy,” Italian judges are widely recognized for their inability to exercise independent judgment in the area of forensic science. Invariably, they accept the views of the police and simply ignore–with no justification whatever–the testimony of more qualified defense experts.
The Massei report to which Ms. Harden refers is a case in point and an unqualified disaster. It is full of ludicrous contradictions, misstatements of the evidence, and speculation. He posits the existence of evidence that was never shown in court and, when he can’t think of what else to do, he ignores testimony.
So by all means read this strange, deplorable document, but by all means also read the 460 pages of tightly sourced and written appeals briefs which unmercifully exposes the Massei report for the farce that it is. Were Ms. Harden and others reading the appeals documents too? Somehow I doubt it. Can’t be balanced in our reading tastes you know.
Since she mentions DNA, perhaps a word about that is in order too. It is important to know that the form of DNA analysis used by the Italian technician is not the normal kind we are familiar with through CSI and other shows. It was a bastardized variation of an experimental technique using ultra low samples that is not accepted as reliable in 99.9 percent of the countries on earth. The technique use by the Italian police is intellectually indefensible and was invented on the fly to force a result against.
This is just one example among dozens. At the end of the day there is not a single issue where the defense doesn’t have the better of the argument. Stripped of all pretense, the prosecution “case” is a cruel hoax. To understand the utter nullity of the prosecution case one has to study, among a great many other things, genetic testing, the forensic use of luminol, computer operating systems, cell phone technology, and the way pathologists determine time of death.
Leave a Comment