<p>That may be a fair article about the case, but it doesn’t come close to convincing me that there was enough evidence to bring Amanda Knox to trial in the U.S., much less to convict her. Her DNA was on the handle of a kitchen knife in her boyfriend’s kitchen? That’s sure strong evidence! She didn’t have a corroborated alibi? Most of the time, neither do I. I would be up a creek if I ever had to prove that on any particular evening I wasn’t a few blocks from my house. She made ambiguous and contradictory admissions after heavy, and physical, interrogation? So would almost anyone, regardless of guilt or innocence.</p>
<p>The degree of speculation prosecutors were apparently permitted is bewildering to me as an American lawyer. Apart from anything else, that alone would be grounds for a mistrial here, if not for disciplinary sanctions.</p>
<p>In the end, regardless of what the jury says, it is very difficult to believe that she was convicted for anything other than being a beautiful young woman whose behavior strayed too often from local norms. That’s essentially what the article linked concludes, too.</p>