@ Hawt: Hmmm, wait... you do give a shit about accusations that Woody Allen molested a child, but you don't give a shit about this one? Hmmm, what might be the essential difference, I wonder...
I think she is guilty.
First of all, she was FOUND GUILTY. By a legal system that is no worse than the US legal system. Sure, Italian politicians may be corrupt, but that doesn't mean the legal system is the clown circus that the political arena is. The fact that it was overturned (because of doubts regarding the DNA evidence, mostly), then reinstated doesn't mean that the final verdict wasn't just. It just means that prior to the last trial, the judges felt the evidence wasn't enough to convict. The case was presented again on appeal, perhaps made a bit stronger, and she was convicted. That is a justice system in action, doing what it is supposed to do.
Legally, when someone is convicted, they are supposed to have done it. Especially when it isn't done in a kangaroo court but in a country that has the rule of law. The US expects Italy to extradite Italians residing in Italy when they are convicted in the USA. This was not a political persecution. So, the US should extradite her to Italy.
Now, why do I think she is guilty (apart from the judges ruling she is guilty, which matters, because it is their job and they had the case presented to them by all sides)?
The story that Amanda Knox and her boyfriend told was changed many times. And it never held up. The events as they related them could not have happened (phone calls they claimed to have made, to her mother, him to the police that are proven never to have taken place). The story conflicts at every turn. There is the false accusation made towards Patrick Lumumba (her boss at a bar she worked at) whom, she claimed, did the killing. But that man could not have done it. He had a rock-solid alibi (he won a defamation case against her as well). So, that was a lie. And there is lots more where that came from.
There is the fact that they both switched their phones off, on the night, and on again, later, at the same time (those things are recorded exactly).
And the pair was found kissing each other when the body had been discovered. That was AFTER Amanda Knox had witnessed the murder (according to her own story... or one of them). Why would they be kissing instead of calling the police? Of course, he claimed he did call the police. But he didn't (they keep exact records of that too, and, besides, his phone was off). Or he did. But he did that after they were already discovered. Does it get any clearer?
In Miss Marple/Colombo terms, this pretty much nails them as being involved. Involved somehow. How is unclear, since there is also this Rudy Guede, who was also convicted (and who claimed lots of different things, so what he says is hard to credit). It is clear that Guede was there. But the stories of Knox and Raffaele Sollecito don't hold up, conflict, got changed all the time. Hard to tell what happened, exactly, but... what they say happened can't have happened. Why would she be accusing Patrick Lumumba when it was Rudy Guede? The two don't exactly look alike (Rudy Guede is of African descent). Why did the pair apparently try to cover up for Rudy Guede, initially?
And then there were the failed alibi's that the pair fabricated. Her claiming she stayed with him. Him saying she didn't, and later that he could not remember. He claimed he watched a movie on his laptop. But the laptop's log showed that it wasn't used that night.
All the inconsistent statements aside, there is other evidence. There is 'weak' DNA evidence placing them (the boy) at the scene, But that is not strong. The evidence of a staged break-in is strong, however, (glass on top of the blood instead of the blood sprayed on top of the glass, so the glass must have been broken after the murder, the body moved around, etc.). Why would Guede stage a break-in? Especially if he actually did break in? There is the lamp from her room that somehow was found 'locked in' in the room of the murdered girl (and various conflicting accounts on how the door got locked). There is a bloody footprint left on a bathroom rug that doesn't seem to fit Guede's foot, but does fit Sollecito's.
To me, it appears that there is pretty solid evidence that the pair knew about the murder (what Knox confessed to, initially, but which she later denied). Which means that they were involved, you'd think, since they later denied it. Guede got in, somehow, and not by breaking a window. Why, how, when? What happened, really? Most likely, we will never know. But that is because the people there decided to lie about it. And we have no clear motive. But how can you have a clear motive if the people involved make up all sorts of stories?
And lastly... what does Amanda Knox claim that made her 'falsely' confess she was there and had heard the murder, initially? Because, according to her, the Italian investigators had made her, under duress, by punching her until she said she was there.
Now, I ask you... how likely is that? Maybe it sounds likely to someone who thinks Italy is just next door to Afghanistan and North Korea (most Americans, I suppose)? But Italian men, punching a confession out of a girl (a pretty girl, no less) right after they started their inquiry into what they must have known would be a case that would have many people watching?
I find that hard to credit. It seems to fit right in there with the many other fictional and changing stories the girl has been telling. The story would have been more believable if she had not gone over-the-top with it, had claimed she had just 'felt pressured', without turning it into a B-movie.
Did she kill the girl herself? No idea. But was she involved and did she try to cover it up? Yes, I think that is pretty clear.