How is it that the suffering of Amanda Knox seems to be THE STORY when she was convicted of killing someone?

Given the evidence presented at trial (one must read the judge's 160 page post-conviction report (which is in Italian) and the actual trial transcripts) the jury concluded that both Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito were somehow connected to the murder of Ms. Kerchner. Please recall, just because the Italian legal system differs from that of the US legal system, some aspects remain constant. For example, if one participates or is associated with a crime, then, one is guilty of that crime. If someone is killed during the commission of a crime (whether it be one of the perpetrators or an innocent victim), and one is even slightly associated with that crime, then, one is guilty of murder. Or, conspiracy to commit murder.

# The alleged murder weapon: A knife with Knox's DNA on the handle and a trace of Kercher's DNA on the blade. Defense argued the DNA was too small of a sample and couldn't be proven as the murder weapon. The prosecution argued that while too small to repeat the DNA test, there was no doubt the sample was Kercher's DNA. And said the knife may not have been the only one used, but likely struck the fatal cut. [This is one of the most hotly contested pieces of evidence.]

# Footprints: Police experts argued to the jury that two luminol-enhanced footprints presumably made in Kercher's blood in the hallway outside her bedroom were Knox's. The defense argued they could have been made in fruit juice, rust or cleaning agents and noted that no specific test for blood was conducted. [Forensic biologists maintained the luminol-enhanced substance was Kercher's blood. In addition, footprint experts argued before the jury that a bloody footprint on the bath mat in the bathroom was Sollecito's.]

# Mixed blood: Forensic police biologists testified about five spots where they had detected samples of "mixed blood" genetic material -- spots of blood of both Knox and Kercher's -- in the bidet, on the sink, on the drain tap, on the Q-tip box in the bathroom and in a spot where (another bedroom) prosecutors argued Knox and Sollecito staged a break-in. [Defense attorneys argued that this genetic material couldn't be certified as blood and that even if it were, it wasn't abnormal since Knox lived in the house and could have left blood around at any time.] [The attorney for the Kercher family, Francesco Maresca, said after the sentence that he believed this mixed blood evidence was "the most damning" piece of evidence against Knox. ]

# Bra clasp: The victim's bra clasp with a significant sample of Sollecito's DNA was found in the room where Kercher died. It had been cut off the victim with a knife. [Defense attorneys argued it was contaminated since it had been noticed and catalogued right after the homicide, but only picked up by police 46 days later and in a slightly different place than it had originally been photographed.] [Prosecutors argued that the crime scene had been sealed and that there was no other DNA of Sollecito's found in the house, except on the butt of a cigarette in the kitchen, so it likely was not contamination. -- DNA does not spontaneously occur on any item.]

# Lies and alibis: Prosecutors argued that in the days immediately following the murder, Knox and Sollecito gave a number of differing stories and alibis. [At one point, in intercepted prison conversations with his family about the knife found with Kercher's DNA, Sollecito suggested he may have accidentally cut Kercher's finger with a knife once while cooking fish. Although, Ms. Kerchner had never been in Sollecito's apartment.

Knox said on the stand that she took a shower in the bathroom even though she had seen some spots of blood, which had not particularly alarmed her. Sollecito, however, told police in a recorded 911 call (in Italy, it's 118) played to jurors that there was "a pool of blood" in the bathroom.

Prosecutors argued that Sollecito called 911 only after he and Knox had been surprised on the scene by another police unit that had shown up to investigate the theft of Ms. Kercher's cell phones, which had been found that morning ringing in the yard of a nearby villa. This is the what actually happened. [The postal police arrived prior to Sollecito making the call. It has since been proven. The defense was off base here and attempting to confuse the issue.]

# Witnesses and character: Prosecutors called on dozens of witnesses, of which about 20 proved to be crucial ones. These witnesses testified that they saw Knox, Sollecito or both the night before, the night of and the morning after the crime. [Specifically, an Italian testified seeing Knox, Guede and Sollecito together with Kercher two nights before before she was killed.] [A homeless man testified about seeing Knox and Sollecito arguing and looking over the crime scene nervously. --- Of course they say that a homeless man is not a reliable witness. Why does being homeless mean that one has bad eyesight?]

An Albanian drug dealer testified about a run-in he had with Knox, Sollecito and Guede outside the house where the slaying happened, and a local shopowner testified that Knox was waiting outside his shop in the early morning hours after the killing (when she said she was still sleeping). [He testified that he thought she had bought items from the cleaning aisle.]

Finally, why had the knife, mentioned above that was found at Mr. Sollecito's home, been subjected to a bleach wash? No one regularly washes their knives in bleach. No one.

Ms. Knox & Mr. Sollecito have a significant number of questions to answer.

Who did? Rudy Guede he was once convicted of that. Nobody is aware of how Knox was once convicted, that's the jury's mystery. There was once just a few circumstantial proof, taht was once now not well sufficient to turn out something. Mr. Mignini, the prosecutor used his creativeness and informed them this tale approximately how Meredith Kercher was once one in all four persons gambling a intercourse recreation, the others have been Knox and her boyfriend, and Rudy. Meredith wound up with a knife in her neck. The jury purchased it. THE STORY is whatever that legislation pupils speak approximately, on account that if Amanda might get convicted, a prosecutor is also ready to convict any individual he suspects of committing against the law.

Because she's American and some people consider her pretty. I've seen headlines like: " American Beauty convicted/accused of murder". So it's like saying she's American and pretty so she couldn't possibly be a murderer right? The media focuses on issues that they think will be a juicy story and leave much of the details out. They show us stories that only have to with the US that's why we don't hear about all the suffering of people from countries who are not on the United States' radar. Maybe she did it, maybe she didn't, I don't know and it's not my place to say, but just because she's American doesn't mean she's innocent.

First they depict her as a sex craze fanatic in a sex game gone wrong, then finally the prosecutors conclude it was out of rage and jealously? (Make up your mind!) The media here didn't take side but did note for and against the case, what amazes me is that the prosecutors and the jurors conclude no 'motive' and that there is no physical evidence that pin-pointed her and her boyfriend to the crime scene.

The whole 'DNA' could of come from anywhere but at the same time the defence argued it didn't have strong DNA to link the two, plus the knife they've 'found' so called used in the killing isn't what was actually used in the killing since the wounds size differ with the weapon used. I truly believe she and her boyfriend is innocent, because the prosecutors could not conclude there was physical evidence that tie her and her boyfriend to the crime.