The reactions on both sides of the Atlantic will be markedly different; while many Americans may feel the right decision has been reached, in Italy and the UK the reaction so far has mainly been one of stunned disbelief.

Much of the U.S. media has propagated the idea that this has always been a simple case of wrongful conviction: Knox was railroaded by a corrupt prosecutor; she was beaten and bullied into a false confession; and there was no evidence anyway. Or was there?

“In 50 years of practicing law, I have never seen a more one-sided presentation by the media in the United States of the case,” says Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz. “Everybody is saying there’s no evidence against her and she’s totally innocent. It’s just not true.”

Whatever your personal stance as to guilt or innocence, Dershowitz is correct that waves of pro-Knox publicity have permeated much of the American media, thanks in part to the backing of Seattle’s largest PR company. Much of what has been reported about the Kercher case is simply untrue; just last week, Nina Burleigh’s Newsweek piece contained multiple untruths, such as the bizarre claim that the trace of Kercher found on Sollecito’s knife actually came from a potato.

In order to understand how this case unfolded over the past seven and a half years, we must look past the sensationalist images that both pro-innocence and pro-guilt parties promote. Forget the sex-obsessed, manipulative sociopath; forget the naïve, browbeaten college girl. What’s the truth behind the sensationalist slant? With two convictions and now two acquittals, why are so many people still convinced of Knox’s guilt – and that of Raffaele Sollecito?

“There’s no evidence”

The claim that there is no evidence is baffling. Among the 10,000 pages of evidence presented is, of course, the DNA evidence.”  Knox’s DNA was found on the handle of the murder weapon – a knife belonging to Sollecito – and Kercher’s was found on the blade. Whether it’s really Kercher’s DNA is hotly contested by Knox supporters, but contamination was ruled out at the latest appeal. The probability that the DNA on the blade did not come from Kercher was found to be one in 300 million billion.

It’s worth noting that Sollecito, to whom the knife belonged, had no trouble accepting it was Kercher’s DNA on his blade: “The fact there is Meredith’s DNA on the kitchen knife is because once when we were all cooking together I accidentally pricked her hand,” he wrote in his prison diary. “I apologized immediately and she said it was not a problem.”

Sollecito later admitted this was a fabrication and Kercher had never been to his house. His diary contains several more intriguing comments that highlight his trust that it was indeed Kercher’s DNA on his knife: “I was in a total panic because I thought Amanda killed Meredith or maybe helped someone kill her… Amanda may have stitched me up by taking the knife and giving it to the son of a bitch who killed Meredith.”

Sollecito’s DNA was also found on Kercher’s bra clasp. Because his genetic profile is fully represented at 15 loci (only 10 loci is necessary in most countries), the chance it came from contamination is next to nil.”

But then there is also the circumstantial and behavioral evidence that has gone largely unreported. Why did Sollecito admit to police in 2007 that, “In my previous statement I told a load of rubbish because Amanda had convinced me of her version of the facts and I didn’t think about the inconsistencies”?

Why did Knox and Sollecito insist that they slept soundly through the night of the murder until 10 a.m. when there is undisputed human interaction on Sollecito’s computer at 5:30 a.m., where someone listened to music for around 30 minutes? How could they be asleep if Sollecito’s phone was turned on at 6:02 a.m.? (Sollecito’s lawyer tried to blame his cat for switching on the phone.)

Why did Knox say she never left Sollecito’s apartment that night when her phone records clearly show that she did – a fact Sollecito admitted when he withdrew his alibi for her last year?

Why did Knox, apparently frantic with worry at not being able to locate Kercher and desperately calling, only let her phone ring for mere seconds before hanging up?

Is Knox’s story about using the blood-stained bathmat to slide back to her bedroom on credible – or is it simply a way to explain why her DNA was found mingled with Kercher’s blood in footprints in the hallway? The full evidence list in this case is extensive and, as Dershowitz commented, “there are thousands of Americans in jail today on the basis of far less evidence than there is against Amanda Knox.”