Does the DNA evidence show Knox is guilty?

Apparently you read British papers, which may be the source of your misinformation. However, there was no evidence that the house had been cleaned with bleach nor that Amanda and Raffaele had purchased bleach. Those early rumors were printed in the British press, but later appeared to be unsubstantiated. Unfortunately, your British press never printed corrections of their earlier errors.

As far as the DNA evidence is concerned, a few picograms of Meredith Kercher's DNA was found on the blade of a knife, and a few picograms of Amanda Knox's DNA was found on the handle of that knife. At first glance, this sounds like evidence against Amanda, but it isn't. First, the shape of this knife is inconsistent with knife used to stab Kercher. Second, the amount of DNA collected - - mere picograms - - cannot accurately be tested. Third, and most important, the DNA collected could have come from dust emitted from the victim's skin. We humans emit 30 mg/minute of DNA containing dust from our skin. The few picograms of DNA that were found were thousands of times smaller than the DNA found in an ordinary speck of dust. Kercher's DNA on the knife was not evidence because there was nothing to suggest that the DNA came from blood and not dust. What's worse, the innappropriate collection techniques used by the Italian police could very well have been the source of the DNA that was discovered. This DNA sample was so small that it was invisible. The mere handling of other objects in the villa was enough to pass that DNA from object to object. In short, it is not surprising to find our DNA in very unexpected places. This alone is not evidence.

I agree with what you said about the media reporting not telling the whole story. If you listen only to American media, she seems obviously innocent. But I do not think that this is the story people are hearing in Italy and other countries, I think they are getting more info and details that we have no access to. From the beginning of this case I thought she was innocent, but I was judging based on the media coverage here, however after her conviction I started to suspect this may not be the case.

I wouldn't know, not being on the jury, how could I and I wouldn't be swayed by the media.Fact is she was tried before a jury and convicted.That's what matters.If on appeal her lawyers can convince that the verdict is unsafe then so be it.Meredith's murder was horrendous.It would be a shame if she were not afforded justice.Time will tell.

The jurors who were there and heard all the evidence found her guilty and sentenced her to 26 years. Ergo, she is guilty, but even before the verdict I thought she was 100 percent guilty by her actions attitude and the expressions on her face. I loathe her.

They weren't as clever as they thought, especially where the knife was concerned.