They actually have very little on her, in terms of evidence. However, Knox continually changed her alibi, had conflicting stories with her ex boyfriend, made a confession under duress- which was later recanted, she falsely accused her boss of committing the murder, admitted to being under the influence of drugs and booze during the night in question, turned off her cell phone, and there's still confusion as to her whereabouts during the night. Plus, there's debate over whether the knife obtained from her ex boyfriend's house was really the murder weapon, and the dna evidence was supposedly tainted. Some say the media circus surrounding the case made it impossible for her to receive a fair trial.

While she cannot prove that she was not involved, the authorities seemingly cannot prove that she was involved, nor even had a motive. The theory of a group sex game gone bad is a bit of a stretch. Which brings us to the issue of presumed innocence until proven guilty, or vice versa?

This is a unique site as we have members in the US, UK, and Italy. Supposedly, the public perception about her guilt differs in these countries, so I'm interested in how she has been portrayed in the UK and Italy.