The series dedicated to Amanda Knox manages to clearly show how, from the beginning, the press contributed to creating a deliberately unsympathetic image of her. This narrative facilitated public opinion siding with those conducting the investigations, making it more difficult to believe in her innocence and that of Raffaele Sollecito. Even though romanticized, the representation of the Police and Judiciary appears credible: prosecutor Giuliano Mignini and the head of Perugia's Mobile Squad, Monica Napoleoni, were later reported and convicted for other crimes, from ideological forgery to abuse of office, episodes that show how certain investigative methods were anything but impeccable.
Many critics point out the little attention dedicated to Meredith Kercher. It's true: the series doesn't delve into her story, but not to diminish her memory. The focus is Amanda's journey, her personal experience, the media and judicial persecution she suffered, and the slow path toward rehabilitation. The chosen perspective is clear: to give voice to someone who was turned into a scapegoat and treated as guilty well before the final sentences.
I find it right that Amanda today monetizes her ordeal. It's not an unusual privilege, but a way to reclaim part of what was taken from her. We're not just talking about financial compensation, but the possibility of publicly rehabilitating her own image. That there are still those who continue not to believe her, despite the only guilty party having been convicted, demonstrates a common paradox: justice, even when it arrives, never satisfies everyone.
If this series exists today, it's because the press, with the support of the Police and Judiciary, immediately transformed a drama into a spectacle. Chasing a "media-effective" culprit, they ended up disrespecting not only Amanda, but also Meredith. Now Amanda tells her version: why should this be upsetting, if it was precisely the initial spectacularization that made this story necessary?
