Have you read the Judge's summary? It was very enlightening to me having read many mis-reports from media sources. I will reply to your points in turn, but to

Have you read the Judge's summary? It was very enlightening to me having read many mis-reports from media sources. I will reply to your points in turn, but to be clear, I'm not specifically arguing for or against the conviction; I'm saying that this article grossly ignores many of the facts of the case. It appears that large parts of the American media have painted this case as some loon prosecutor bent on convicting an American girl with flimsy flawed evidence and a fanciful idea of some Satanic sexy orgy gone wrong. There's been a lot of column inches devoted to discussing some of the things this article breaks down (the strange behaviour, the telephone calls). I can understand the media focusing on this (it's what the public find interesting, not the detailed crime scene details). But as this article is about digging for information and applying reasonable thought, it's disappointing they chose to ignore the large body of evidence presented at the trial that lead to their conviction. To your counterpoints: 1. If I recall, there is good (not the drunk homeless man) eyewitness testimony of the 3 meeting prior to the night in question. - There is fair amount of DNA evidence (see my parent post, and the links). Yes, some may appear potentially flawed (e.g. bra clasp). However the judge considered and admitted the evidence. Consider that a panel of legal experts considered and unanimously convicted based on this evidence. - From truejustice.org regarding evidence of a cleanup: "The ONLY fingerprints of Amanda Knox in the entire house were found on a glass in the kitchen. Even in her own room there was not one print." - Yes, the eyewitness isn't great. But again, the evidence was admitted by the judge for reasons given in the judge's summary. - The police themselves were the eyewitnesses to them being at the crime scene with mop and bucket. - Whether the police appear tainted is worth considering, but doesn't explain away a body of hard evidence that was admitted in court. - Your theory that Guede was a lone-wolf rape and murderer was quickly dismissed by the judge, given the huge body of physical evidence suggesting other people involved (again, see my post and the report). edit: This is a great link that goes over some of your points (motive, DNA evidence etc: http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/how_the_media_should_approach_the_case_if_justice_is_to_be_done_and_seen_to/ http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/how_the_m...