Amanda Knox Trial (How Strong is that Evidence, Really?)

As many of you know, American exchange student Amanda Knox was recently found guilty of the first-degree murder of British exchange student Meredith Kercher. However, upon reading the different points of view on the trial, I'm not so sure she really is.

Excerpt from TIME:

In what is surely a well-rehearsed demonstration by now, Bremner goes on to address the case against Knox, point by point. The prosecution, she says, is most likely relying on a knife found at the house of Knox's then boyfriend and fellow accused Rafaelle Sollecito. That knife has Knox's DNA on the handle and what some forensic scientists say is Kercher's DNA on the tip. But Bremner dismisses the idea that it is the knife that killed Kercher: "They never found the murder weapon." Bremner claims that a bloody print on the bed linens conveys the shape of the actual murder weapon and that the knife in question "doesn't match an outline of the knife on the bed." Additionally, Bremner says, expert testimony has already indicated that at least two of the wounds on Kercher's neck couldn't have been made by that particular blade. That aside, she points out, it's not surprising that Knox's DNA would be on its handle; she prepared dinner with Sollecito in his apartment.

I agree with the woman. From what I've watched, this doesn't seem to be very strong evidence. There are many other discrepancies, which I implore you to check out (the title of this post will take you to the TIME article).

No, it isn't a conspiracy theory. I just think that the jurisdiction could have done a better job of sticking to the facts, rather than depending on the media.