In the previous episode, we witnessed the heart-wrenching tale of Amanda Knox, who was finally set free after eight grueling years of wrongful imprisonment. She had been wrongfully charged with killing her flatmate Meredith Kercher in 2007, while the real culprit, Rudy Guede, was released after serving fifteen years in a French prison. Despite his release, Guede maintains his innocence, leaving the world wondering who the true perpetrator behind Meredith’s untimely demise is. Meredith, a vivacious and lively girl, often calls her parents, expressing concerns about drug dealers. However, on the day of the incident, her calls went unanswered, and the next morning, her bloodstained body was found covered with a blanket, bearing multiple lacerations on her body and neck. The prosecutors on the scene quickly jumped to the conclusion that the crime involved multiple individuals, including Rudy, Raffaele, and Amanda. However, the evidence gathered was riddled with inconsistencies and contamination, rendering it unreliable. Despite this, the prosecution attempted to push forward with the case, ignoring the evidence’s glaring shortcomings, ultimately leaving a bitter taste in everyone’s mouth. In the end, justice prevailed, and Amanda was released, but the real question remains: who was responsible for Meredith’s tragic demise?
The Wildfire Of Support
In the wake of social media, the case quickly escalated into an online battleground, with people from all corners of the world taking sides on the question of Amanda’s innocence. In an unexpected turn of events, even Donald Trump took to social media to convey his opinion on the matter. He called for the President to interfere in the case and boycott Italy, sparking outrage and further controversy. The controversy attracted the attention of forensic biologist Greg Hampkin, who had spent his lifetime debunking wrongful convictions in the United States. Steve Moore, the FBI’s forensic specialist, favored Amanda, believing that she was not guilty and was wrongfully convicted. The murder weapon submitted by the French prosecution didn’t match the size of the wounds found on Meredith’s body. None of that was considered by the court, and Rudy’s conviction was later upheld in the court and sentenced the trio to prison.
Following the establishment of a second trial, the prosecution was ordered to conduct an independent review of the DNA evidence, a request that had been previously denied for years. It didn’t take long for the independent review to uncover serious discrepancies with key pieces of DNA evidence. Professor Carla Vecchiotti, who led the review, found that the knife allegedly used in the murder carried only a minuscule amount of biological DNA, indicating that it was not the murder weapon. Additionally, the bra clasp that contained Raffaele’s DNA was mishandled, further discrediting the prosecution’s case. The key pieces of DNA evidence, upon which the prosecution had relied heavily, were deemed worthless and should never have been submitted in court. This shocking revelation spoke volumes about the French judicial system, which appeared more determined to close the case than to seek the truth. Finally, based on the review, Amanda and Raffaele were freed from the French prison, having spent years there on wrongful charges. However, while Amanda’s freedom was a victory, it did not provide the closure that the Kercher family so desperately sought. They still had no answers to the most important question they had ever asked: who really killed Meredith?
The prosecution was not one to give up easily, even after their initial theory was proven false. They uncovered some hidden footprints that belonged to Amanda and Raffaele, but these were also met with skepticism due to concerns that they were staged. Critics noted that there was no evidence of any cleaning in the other room. It seemed that every new piece of evidence told a different story, leaving the case in a state of confusion. Despite the fact that Meredith’s cash and credit cards were stolen, the prosecution refused to accept that a break-in had occurred. They claimed that everything was staged, even though Rudy Guede had a history of break-ins. In one instance, he even pulled a knife on a homeowner named Christian Tramontano. The French judicial system chose to overlook these facts and re-convicted Amanda and Raffaele, increasing their sentence in the process.
This was the defense’s last chance to prove their innocence, and fortunately for Amanda and Raffaele, they were acquitted of all charges. The lack of concrete evidence linking them to the crime scene proved that the entire case was built on a weak prosecution hypothesis. The prosecution had argued that Amanda and Raffaele were guilty because they had shown no remorse and were kissing each other in front of the cameras when Meredith’s body was discovered. However, this argument held no water, and Amanda and Raffaele were finally exonerated.
Ending & Review
The truth is, Amanda and Raffaele were ill-prepared for the grueling legal battle that lay ahead. They were young and naive, and their comforting nature left them vulnerable in the face of an aggressive prosecution led by Migini, the head prosecutor. Migini was a fierce opponent who was solely focused on securing a conviction for his own personal gain. He based his entire case on the couple’s facial expressions, which he believed betrayed a lack of remorse. To make matters worse, Migini abused his position of power and interrogated both Amanda and Raffaele without a lawyer present. He even coerced Amanda into signing a confession sheet, despite her protests of innocence. This gross miscarriage of justice only added to the mounting evidence of a flawed and biased prosecution case. It’s a tragic reality that despite the wealth of evidence left at the crime scene, the many missteps and oversights during the investigation have made it impossible to definitively determine what happened on that fateful night.
This documentary masterfully shines a light on the flaws within our justice system and the catastrophic aftermath that can ensue as a result. The case in question not only resulted in the wrongful imprisonment of two innocent people but also left the Kercher family bereft of the truth they so desperately deserved. It is a tragedy that an innocent young woman lost her life, and instead of finding the answers they needed, the family was left with a cloud of doubt due to the unjust conviction of Amanda and Raffaele. Ultimately, the case serves as a stark reminder of the dangers of a flawed justice system and the scars it can leave behind on those involved.